Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango

Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. Van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 121-133

  Jacobs, Scott ^a   Jackson, Sally ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925811644     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410614155     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Aldrich, A. (1993). Control strategies in discourse. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Arizona, Tucson.
2. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124-162.
3. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
4. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
5. Danda, D. E. (2001). Rules for witnesses. FindLawfor legal professionals. Retrieved July 31, 2005, from http://library.findlaw.com/2001 /Jan/1 /128695.html
6. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussion. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
7. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory ofargumentation: The pragma- dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
10. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication & culture: Selected papers from the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 67-75). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
11. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Grice, H. P. (1989) Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Metheun.
14. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity.
15. Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argument illuminated (pp. 260-269). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat).
16. Jackson, S. (1996). Fallacies and heuristics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. II (pp. 257-269). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat).
17. Jackson, S. (1998). Argumentation by design. Argumentation, 12, 183-198.
18. Jackson, S. (2005, August). Designing countermoves to reshape a disagreement space. Paper presented at the biennial NCA/AFA conference on argumentation, Alta, UT.
19. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
20. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2004, June). Designing countermoves to questionable argumentative tactics. Paper presented at the Wake Forest Argumentation Conference, Venice, Italy.
21. Jacobs, S. (1987). The management of disagreement in conversation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 229-239). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
22. Jacobs, S. (1992). Argumentation without advocacy: Strategies for case-building by dispute mediators. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 270-280). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (Sic Sat).
23. Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14, 261-286.
24. Jacobs, S. (2002). Maintaining neutrality in third-party dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1403-1426.
25. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20, 177-204.
26. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205-237). Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
27. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161-172.
28. Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., Hallmark, J., Hall, B., & Stearns, S. A. (1987). Ideal argument in the real world: Making do in mediation. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices: Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 291-298). Annandale, VA: SC A.
29. Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., Stearns, S., & Hall, B. (1991). Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to- face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 43-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates.
30. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
31. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische logik [Dialogical logic], Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgeselleschaft.
32. Maher, D., & Jacobs, S. (1995). The Clayoquot Sound controversy: The procedural adequacy of news coverage and public deliberation of environmental issues. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 344-348). Annandale, VA: SCA.
33. Polcar, L., & Jacobs, S. (1998). Evasive answers: Reframing multiple argumentative demands in political interviews. In J. F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques. Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 226-231). Annandale, VA: NCA.
34. Recanati, F. (2002). Literal meaning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vols. 1 and 2 (G. Jefferson, Ed.; E. A. Schegloff, Intro.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
36. Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095.
37. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
38. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts’. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-78). New York: Academic Press.
40. Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1-23.
41. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance’. Communication and cognition (2nd ed., with postface). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
42. Tiersma, P. (1990). The language of perjury: “Literal truth,” ambiguity, and the false statement requirement. Southern California Law Review, 63, 373-431.
43. Truch, N. J., & Jacobs, S. (1998). Identifying arguments in courtroom transcripts. In J. F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques. Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 333-338). Annandale, VA: NCA.
44. Walton, D. N. (1995). A pragmatic theoiy of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
45. Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
46. Willard, C. A. (1990). Authority. Informal Logic, 12, 11-22.