By Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen
The essays which are gathered in Controversy and Confrontation offer a better perception into the connection among controversy and war of words that deepens our knowing of the functioning of argumentative discourse in dealing with changes of opinion. Their authors stem from backgrounds. First, the debate students Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl speak about old controversies in technological know-how, either from a theoretical and an empirical point of view; Saim concentrates on a historic controversy; Fritz presents a ancient point of view on controversies via interpreting communique rules. moment the argumentation students Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels tackle theoretical or empirical elements of argumentative war of words; Aakhus and Vasilyeva learn argumentative discourse from the point of view of dialog research; Jackson analyzes argumentative war of words in a contemporary debate among scientists and politicians. final yet no longer least, participants, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an try and bridge the examine of old controversy and the research of argumentation.
Read or Download Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies) PDF
Best rhetoric books
Rhetoric and composition concept has proven a renewed curiosity in sophistic countertraditions, as noticeable within the paintings of such "postphilosophers" as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Hélène Cixous, and of such rhetoricians as Susan Jarratt and Steven Mailloux. As D. Diane Davis strains today’s theoretical curiosity to these countertraditions, she additionally units her attractions past them.
The essays which are accumulated in Controversy and disagreement offer a more in-depth perception into the connection among controversy and war of words that deepens our figuring out of the functioning of argumentative discourse in coping with changes of opinion. Their authors stem from backgrounds.
Whilst writing a dissertation or thesis, it truly is necessary to produce a piece that's well-structured and well-presented. Giving transparent examples all through, this booklet bargains all of the sensible suggestion that scholars will desire, while writing a dissertation or thesis. half 1: content material - from the structure order of contents to the compilation of the bibliography and appendices half 2: Presentation and elegance - the main points of the way paintings may be provided and masking facets comparable to writing kinds, web page numbers, margins and abbreviations.
- Figures of Speech: 60 Ways To Turn A Phrase
- Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects
- Relocating the Personal: A Critical Writing Pedagogy
- Mansfield and Vietnam: A Study in Rhetorical Adaptation
- The Sundance Writer: A Rhetoric, Reader, Research Guide, and Handbook (5th Edition)
- Many Sides: A Protagorean Approach to the Theory, Practice and Pedagogy of Argument
Additional resources for Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (Controversies)
Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse Dascal, M. (2001). How rational can a polemic across the analytic-continental ‘divide’ be? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 9(3), 313–339. Dascal, M. (2007). Traditions of controversy and conflict resolution. Chang (Eds). Traditions of Controversy. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Dascal, M. (this volume). Dichotomies and types of debate. Ch. 2. H. van, Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B. (this volume). Reasonableness in confrontation: Empirical evidence concerning the assessment of ad hominem fallacies.
Van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. : Cambridge University Press. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. H. Willard (Eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (organized by ISSA at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, June 16–19, 1998).
Most controversy scholars who would like to connect communication studies and argumentation theory with their studies refer to the rhetorical perspective, but several of them also mention dialectic and pragmatic angles. Ferreira (chapter 7) is one of the authors who want to utilize all three of them. In order to account . It seems worthwhile to consider the “deep disagreements” or “standoffs” that sometimes seem to prevent controversies from being open to constructive conflict management in relationship with the application of such basic principles of communication and argumentation and the “higher order” conditions (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 189–190) presumed to be fulfilled when they are applied.