Cognitive Editing of Arguments and Reasons for Requests: Evidence from Think-Aloud Protocols

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 98-108

  Hample, Dale ^a  

^a WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24644500125     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2000.11951662     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Brown, P, & Levinson, S. C., (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Daliinger, J.M., & Hample, D., (1991). Cognitive editing of arguments and interpersonal construct differentiation: Refining the relationship. In F. H., van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A., Blair, & C. A., Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 567–574). Dordrecht, Netherlands: SICSAT.
3. Daly, J. A., Weber, D. J., Vangelisti, A. L., Maxwell, M., & Neel, H., (1989). Concurrent cognitions during conversations: Protocol analysis as a means of exploring conversations. Discourse Processes, 12, 227–244.
4. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A., (1985). Protocol analysis. In T. A., van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 2: Dimensions of discourse (pp. 259–268). London: Academic Press.
5. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R., (1984). Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120–160.
6. Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J., (1982). Family communication: Cohesion and change. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
7. Hample, D., (1984, April). Roads not taken, arguments not made. Presented the annual meeting of the Central States Speech Association, Chicago.
8. Hample, D., & Daliinger, J. M., (in press). The effects of situation on the use or suppression of possible compliance gaining appeals. In M., Allen, R., Preiss, B., Gayle, & N., Burrell (Eds.) Interpersonal communication: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Hample, D., & Dallinger J. M., (1998). On the etiology of the rebuff phenomenon: Why are persuasive messages less polite after rebuffs? Communication Studies, 49, 305–321.
10. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J.M., (1992). The use of multiple goals in cognitive editing of arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28, 109–122.
11. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M., (1990). Arguers as editors. Argumentation, 4, 153–169.
12. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J.M., (1987). Cognitive editing of argument strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 123–144.
13. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M., (1985). Unused compliance gaining strategies. In J. R., Cox, M. O., Sillars, & G. B., Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice (pp. 675–691). Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association.
14. Jackson, S. A., & Jacobs, S., (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.
15. Kosloski, D. L., Hinck, S. S., & Dailey, W. O., (1991, May). An investigation of the impact of situation on the cognitive editing of argument strategies. Presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
16. Smagorinsky, P., (Ed.) (1994). Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Smagorinsky, P., (1989). The reliability and validity of protocol analysis. Written Communication, 8, 463–479.