16 found
Order:
  1.  13
    “Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment.Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (2):209-235.
    In response to an accusation of having said something inappropriate, the accused may exploit the difference between the explicit contents of their utterance and its implicatures. Widely discussed in the pragmatics literature are those cases in which arguers accept accountability only for the explicit contents of what they said while denying commitment to the implicature. In this paper, we sketch a fuller picture of commitment denial. We do so, first, by including in our discussion not just denial of implicatures, but (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2.  12
    High Costs and Low Benefits: Analysis and Evaluation of the “I’m Not Stupid” Argument.Henrike Jansen - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (4):529-551.
    This article presents an analysis and evaluation of what I call the “I’m not stupid” argument. This argument has ancient roots, which lie in Aristotle’s famous description of the weak man’s and strong man’s arguments. An “I’m not stupid” argument is typically used in a context of accusation and defense, by a defendant who argues that they did not commit the act of which they have been accused. The analysis of this type of argument takes the shape of an argumentative (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  5
    The Language of Argumentation.Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen (eds.) - 2021 - Springer Verlag.
    Bringing together scholars from a broad range of theoretical perspectives, The Language of Argumentation offers a unique overview of research at the crossroads of linguistics and theories of argumentation. In addition to theoretical and methodological reflections by leading scholars in their fields, the book contains studies of the relationship between language and argumentation from two different viewpoints. While some chapters take a specific argumentative move as their point of departure and investigate the ways in which it is linguistically manifested in (...)
    No categories
  4.  61
    Refuting a Standpoint by Appealing to Its Outcomes: Reductio ad Absurdum vs. Argument from Consequences.Henrike Jansen - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (3):249-266.
    Used informally, the Reductio ad Absurdum (RAA) consists in reasoning appealing to the logically implied, absurd consequences of a hypothetical proposition, in order to refute it. This kind of reasoning resembles the Argument from Consequences, which appeals to causally induced consequences. These types of argument are sometimes confused, since it is not worked out how these different kinds of consequences should be distinguished. In this article it is argued that the logical consequences in RAA-argumentation can take different appearances and that (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5.  69
    E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator.Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):485-496.
    SummaryThis contribution offers an evaluation of e contrario reasoning in which the interpretation of a legal rule is based on the context of the law system (contextual e contrario reasoning). A model is presented which will show all the explicit and implicit elements of the argument at work and will also point out how these distinct parts are interrelated. By questioning the content and justificatory power of these elements, the weak spots in the argument can be laid bare. It will (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6.  11
    Argumentative Use and Strategic Function of the Expression ‘Not for Nothing’.Henrike Jansen & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):143-162.
    In English discourse one can find cases of the expression ‘not for nothing’ being used in argumentation. The expression can occur both in the argument and in the standpoint. In this chapter we analyse the argumentative and rhetorical aspects of ‘not for nothing’ by regarding this expression as a presentational device for strategic manoeuvring. We investigate under which conditions the proposition containing the expression ‘not for nothing’ functions as a standpoint, an argument or neither of these elements. It is also (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  9
    “You Think That Says a Lot, but Really it Says Nothing”: An Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression Functioning as a Presentational Device.Henrike Jansen - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):615-640.
    This paper discusses idiomatic expressions like ‘that says it all’, ‘that says a lot’ etc. when used in presenting an argument. These expressions are instantiations of the grammatical pattern that says Q, in which Q is an indefinite quantifying expression. By making use of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and the linguistic theory of construction grammar it is argued that instantiations of that says Q expressing positive polarity can fulfil the role of an argumentation’s linking premise. Furthermore, an analysis of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Reason to Dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation, Vol. III.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications+.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Reason to Dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation.Catarina Dutilh Novaes, Henrike Jansen, Jan Albert Van Laar & Bart Verheij (eds.) - 2020 - College Publications.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  5
    Revisiting Reverse Eikos: Dialectical Evaluation of a Rhetorical Argument.Henrike Jansen - 2023 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 56 (2):168-189.
    ABSTRACT Reverse eikos (plausibility) arguments are notorious for reversing a reason that supports an accusation into a reason that denies this accusation. This article offers new insights on their analysis and evaluation, by reconstructing a reverse eikos argument’s line of reasoning as an argumentative pattern. The pattern reveals that this type of argument centers not only on the arguer’s claim that by doing the act of which they have been accused, they would risk becoming the likely suspect, but also on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. I was only quoting" : shifting viewpoint and speaker commitment.Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen - 2022 - In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), From lying to perjury: linguistic and legal perspective on lies and other falsehoods. De Gruyter Mouton.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  24
    In view of an express regulation: Considering the scope and soundness of a contrario reasoning.Henrike Jansen - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (1):44-59.
    A contrario reasoning (or ‘a contrario argument’ or ‘argument a contrario’) is traditionally understood as an appeal to the deliberate silence of the legislator: because a legal rule does not mention case X specifically, the rule is not applicable to it. Modern perspectives on legal reasoning often apply this label to a broader concept of reasoning, namely the reasoning by which a legal rule is not applied because of the differences between the case at hand and the one(s) mentioned in (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15.  1
    Book Review: Walton, Douglas (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press. ISBN 0271021772, 374 pp. [REVIEW]Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):513-518.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  18
    Book Review: Walton, Douglas (2002), Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania University Press. ISBN 0271021772, 374 pp. [REVIEW]Henrike Jansen - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):513-518.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark