Proleptic Argumentation

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 143-154

  Walton, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

anticipating objections; argument attack; argumentation schemes; poisoning the well; prolepsis; rebuttal; types of dialog

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960552376     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2008.11821684     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aristotle (1984). Rhetoric. The complete works of Aristotle, vol. 2. J., Barnes (Ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984.
2. Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C., (1998). Introduction to logic (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
3. Correspondence (no author given) (1863). Mr. Kingsley and Dr. Newman—A correspondence on the question whether Dr. Newman teaches that truth is no virtue. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green. Available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/correspondence.html
4. Davis, W. A., (1986). An introduction to logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
5. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R., (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P., (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H., van Eemeren & P., Houdosser, (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002.
7. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P., (2006). Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392.
8. Hamblin, C. L., (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen, 1970.
9. Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1981). Toward an ethics of rhetoric. Communication, 6, 305–314.
10. Leff, M., (1999). Rhetorical prolepsis and the dialectical tier of argumentation. In F. H., van Eemeren, R., Grootendorst, J. A., Blair, & C. A., Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Four A International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 510–513). Amsterdam: SIC SAT, 510–513.
11. Martinofsky, B., (2006). Framework for analysis of mitigation in courts. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2065–2086.
12. Tindale, C. W., (2006). Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise. Argumentation, 20, 447–466.
13. Walton, D., (1992). Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Walton, D., (2006). Poisoning the well. Argumentation, 20, 273–307.
15. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E.C. W., (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F., (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Zarefsky, D., (2006). Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20, 399–416.