Arguments

Communication and Social Cognition: Theories and Methods

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 97-113

  Hample, Dale ^a  

^a WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859022466     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936313     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1992). Evaluating the believability of sequential arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 28, 135-144.
2. Allen, M., & Kellermann, K. (1988). Using the subjective probability model to evaluate academic debate arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 25, 93-107.
3. Benoit, P. J. (1982, November). The naïve social actor's concept of argument. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville, KY.
4. Berger, C. R. (1988). Planning, affect, and social action generation. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect (pp. 93-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Berger, C. R. (2004). Speechlessness: Causal attributions, emotional features and social consequences. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 147-179.
7. Billig, M. (1998). Rhetoric and the unconscious. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, & A. V. Colman (Eds.), Argumentation & rhetoric [CD-ROM]. St. Catharines, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
8. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
9. Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 11, 179-182.
10. Burgoon, J. K., & White, C. H. (1997). Researching nonverbal message production:A view frominteraction adaptation theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production:Advances in communication theory (pp. 279-312). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Craig, R. T. (1986). Goals in discourse. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 257-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. Cummings, L. (2004). Argument as cognition: A Putnamian criticism of Dale Hample's cognitive conception of argument. Argumentation, 18, 331-348.
13. Dace, K., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1987). The role of argumentation in group decision-making efficacy: Afunctional perspective. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices (pp. 405-410). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
14. Dallinger, J. M., & Hample, D. (2002). The image of the ideal arguer. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing, communication & culture (Vol. 1, pp. 285-291). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
15. Dillard, J. P. (1990). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70-91). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
16. Dillard, J. P. (1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 47-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
17. Dillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plan-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185-206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18. Dillard, J. P., Kinney, T. A., & Cruz, M. G. (1996). Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships. Communication Monographs, 63, 105-130.
19. Dillard, J. P., & Solomon, D. H. (2000). Conceptualizing context in message-production research. Communication Theory, 10, 167-175.
20. Feng, H., & Wilson, S. R. (2004, May). A critical review of the primary/secondary goal framework. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
21. Follman, J., Lavely, C., & Berger, N. (1997a). Critical thinking: Concurrent validity. Informal Logic, 18, 268-272.
22. Follman, J., Lavely, C., & Berger, N. (1997b). Inventory of instruments of critical thinking. Informal Logic, 18, 261-267.
23. Francik, E. P., & Clark, H. H. (1985). How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 560-568.
24. Friemann, R. (2000). Aconsideration of empathy in argumentation. In C. W. Tindale, H. V. Hansen, & E. Sveda (Eds.), Argumentation at the century's turn [CD-ROM]. St. Catharines, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
25. Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Goodnight, G. T. (in press). Predicaments of communication, argument, and power:Towards a critical theory of controversy. Informal Logic.
27. Govier, T. (2001). A practical study of argument (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
28. Graves, A., Morgan, M., Greene, J., Vibber, K., Kordas, J., & Stanforth, L. (2004, November). A phrase well turned: Creative facility in narrative production. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
29. Greene, J. O. (Ed.). (1997). Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Hample, D. (1977). Testing a model of value argument and evidence. Communication Monographs, 14, 106-120.
31. Hample, D. (1980). Acognitive view of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 17, 151-158.
32. Hample, D. (1983). The functions of argument. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Argument in transition (pp. 560-575). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
33. Hample, D. (1985). Athirdperspective onargument. Philosophy andRhetoric, 18, 1-22.
34. Hample, D. (1986a). Argumentation and the unconscious. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 82-95.
35. Hample, D. (1986b). Logic, conscious and unconscious. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 50, 24-40.
36. Hample, D. (1990). Future directions in argumentation research. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 298-314). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
37. Hample, D. (1997). Framing message production research with field theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 171-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
38. Hample, D. (2003a). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439-478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39. Hample, D. (2003b). Argument frames: An initial investigation into operationalizations. Paper presented at the biennial American Forensic Association/National Communication Association Argumentation Conference, Alta, UT.
40. Hample, D. (2003c). Inventional capacity. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck-Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 437-440). Amsterdam: SicSat.
41. Hample, D. (2004a, May). Inventional capacity: Conceptualization, operationalization, and findings. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the InternationalCommunication Association, New Orleans, LA.
42. Hample, D. (2004b, May). Amethodology for observing emotions during interpersonal arguments. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
43. Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
44. Hample, D., Conklin, M., Hodge, M., & Jacky, J. (2004, November). Frames for the general orientation to argumentative situations. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
45. Hample, D., & Dallinger, J. M. (1990). Arguers as editors. Argumentation, 4, 153-169.
46. Hample, D., Thompson-Hayes, M., Wallenfelsz, K., Wallenfelsz, P., & Knapp, C. (2004, November). Face to face arguing is an emotional experience: Triangulating methodologies and early findings. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
47. Heisel, A. D., & Beatty, M. J. (2004, November). Do people rely on knowledge structures during routine interactions or do they improvise? An investigation of prefrontal cortex activity and message coding. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
48. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggression: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.
49. Jackson, S. (1989). Argument as method. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument:Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFAconference on argumentation (pp. 1-8). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
50. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
51. Kellermann, K. (1995). The conversation MOP:Amodel of patterned and pliable behavior. In D. E. Hewes (Ed.), The cognitive basis of interpersonal communication (pp. 181-221). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
52. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Martin, R. W., & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1985). What are conversational arguments? Toward a natural language user's perspective. In J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice (pp. 705-722). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
54. Meyer, J. R. (1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 71-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
55. Meyer, J. R. (2002). Contextual influences on the pursuit of secondary goals in request messages. Communication Monographs, 69, 189-203.
56. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
57. O'Keefe, B. J., & Lambert, B. L. (1995). Managing the flow of ideas: Alocal management approach to message design. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 54-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. O'Keefe, D. J. (1977). Twoconcepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.
59. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: Atreatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
60. Roloff, M. E., & Berger, C. R. (Eds.). (1982). Social cognition and communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
61. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1997). Implicit theories of persuasion. Human Communication Research, 24, 31-63.
62. Rowland, R. C. (1987). Ondefining argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 20, 140-159.
63. Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion:Theory, methods, research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
64. Stiff, J. B., & Mongeau, P. A. (2003). Persuasive communication (2nd ed.). New York:Guilford.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (Eds.). (1994). Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: SicSat.
67. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation:The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68. Waldron, V. R. (1997). Toward a theory of interactive conversational planning. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 195-220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
69. Willard, C. A. (1979). Propositional argument is to argument what talking about passion is to passion. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 21-28.
70. Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
71. Wilson, S. R. (1995). Elaborating the cognitive rules model of interaction goals: The problem of accounting for individual differences in goal formation. Communication Yearbook, 18, 3-25.
72. Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.