Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T16:44:12.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2023

Marcin Lewiński  and
Mark Aakhus
Marcin Lewiński
Affiliation:
NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal
Mark Aakhus
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Argumentation in Complex Communication
Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue
 , pp. 238 - 260
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aakhus, M. (1999). Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 2(3), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2001). Technocratic and design stances toward communication expertise: How GDSS facilitators understand their work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29(4), 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2002). The design of forums for online public deliberation and the consequences for argumentation. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 21(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2006). The act and activity of proposing in deliberation. In Riley, P. (Ed.), Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation (pp. 402–408). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2007). Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2009). Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society. Sixteenth NCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation, 1–12. Alta, UT.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2011). Crafting interactivity for stakeholder engagement: Transforming assumptions about communication in science and policy. Health Physics, 101(5), 531–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aakhus, M. (2013). Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M. (2017). The communicative work of organizations in shaping argumentative realities. Philosophy & Technology, 30(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., Ågerfalk, P. J., Lyytinen, K., & Te’Eni, D. (2014). Symbolic action research in information systems: Introduction to the special issue. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38(4), 1187–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Aldrich, A. (2002). Crafting communication activity: Understanding felicity in “I wish I …” compliments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(4), 395–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2015). Stakeholder engagement as communication design practice. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2), 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & DiDomenico, S. (2016). Language and interaction in the new media environments. In Rocci, A. & de Saussure, L. (Eds.), Verbal communication (Handbooks of communication science 3) (pp. 375–394). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Jackson, S. (2005). Technology, interaction, and design. In Fitch, K. & Sanders, R. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 411–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Laureij, L. V. (2012). Activity, materiality, and creative struggle in the communicative constitution of organizing: Two cases of communication design practice. Language and Dialogue, 2(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In Feteris, E., Garssen, B., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics (pp. 165–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2017). Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., & Vasilyeva, A. L. (2008). Managing disagreement space in multiparty deliberation. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 197–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aakhus, M., Ziek, P., & Dadlani, P. (2016). Argumentation in large, complex practices. In Bondy, P. & Benacquista, L. (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity, and bias: Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–15). Windsor, ON: OSSA. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2291&context=ossaarchive.Google Scholar
Abbott, B. (2018). Walking away from an American Dream, or how a million strategic defaults helped America rethink homeownership. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aberdein, A. (2016). The vices of argument. Topoi, 35(2), 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikin, S. (2021). Argumentative adversariality, contrastive reasons, and the winners-and-losers problem. Topoi, 40(5), 837–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. (2007). Aristotle on the disciplines of argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, analytic. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 25(1), 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, . (1984). The complete works of Aristotle (Barnes, J., ed.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (1997). Topics: Books I and VIII (R. Smith, trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, . (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, trans.), 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asen, R. (2005). Pluralism, disagreement, and the status of argument in the public sphere. Informal Logic, 25(2), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Autto, J., Törrönen, J., & Huysmans, J. (2022). Fear and insecurity in the politics of austerity. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 9(1), 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, D. B. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(4), 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in society, 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (1988). Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions (pp. 9–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaeva, A. V., & Michaels, S. (1991). Monologue, dialogue, and polylogue in communicative situations. Soviet Psychology, 29(3), 22–47.Google Scholar
Berlin artist uses 99 phones to trick Google into traffic jam alert. (February 3, 2020. The Guardian, News Europe. Retrieved: http://www.simonweckert.com/googlemapshacks.html?utm_source=pocket_mylistGoogle Scholar
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2020). What is wrong with deductivism? Informal Logic, 40(3), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J. (1924). The book of fallacies: From unfinished papers of Jeremy Bentham. London: John & H. L. Hunt.Google Scholar
Benthem, J. van. (2009). Foreword. In Rahwan, I. & Simari, G. R. (Eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence (pp. vii–viii). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Biezma, M., & Rawlins, K. (2012) Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(5), 361–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Blaauw, M. (Ed.) (2012). Contrastivism in philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Black, E. (1965). Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (1992). Premissary relevance. Argumentation, 6(2), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, J. A. (1998). The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation, 12(3), 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, J. A. (2003). The relationships among logic, dialectic and rhetoric. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (2002) (pp. 125–131). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Available at: https://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2002-the-relationships-among-logic-dialectic-and-rhetoric/#more-8562Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (2012). Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as related to argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 45 , 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocheński, I. M. (1951). Ancient formal logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bonevac, D. (2003). Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation, 17(4), 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordelon, S. (2005). Contradicting and complicating feminization of rhetoric narratives: Mary Yost and argument from a sociological perspective. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(3), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2014). Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2012). Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 501–521.Google Scholar
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L.. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brashers, D. E., & Meyers, R. A. (1989). Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In Gronbeck, B. E. (Ed.), Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 542–550). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared agency: A planning theory of acting together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 11, 179–182.Google Scholar
Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46(1), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (2013). Rationality through reasoning. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bruxelles, S., & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 75–113.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice. Design Issues, 2(1), 4–22.Google Scholar
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleson, B. R., & Kline, S. L. (1979). Habermas’ theory of communication: A critical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65(4), 412–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53(1), 18–37.Google Scholar
Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one: Coalitions in triads. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing language: An essay on conceptual engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1932). The elimination of metaphysics through logical analysis of language. Erkenntnis II , 219–241.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). The logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2011). Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review, 120(4), 515–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2020). What is conceptual engineering and what should it be? Inquiry, online first: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1817141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, M. J. (1956). Aristotle’s razor. Philosophical Studies, 6, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2016). Comparativism: The grounds of rational choice. In Lord, E. & McGuire, B. (Eds.), Weighing reasons (pp. 213–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H. (2010). The concept of the “polylogue” and the question of “intercultural” identity. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(3), 54–64.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58(2), 332–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D. H., & Miller, G. (2016). What virtue argumentation theory misses: The case of compathetic argumentation. Topoi, 35(2), 451–460.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (1990). Introduction to logic. 8th ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of social reality. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019) The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, J. L. (1964). The uses of argument: An apology for logic. Mind, 73(289), 27–45.Google Scholar
Cox, J. R. (2010). Beyond frames: Recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. R., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.) (1982). Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, R. T. (1999). Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1–2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T. (2008). The rhetoric of ‘dialogue’ in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events. In Weigand, E. (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 55–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248–272.Google Scholar
Cramer, P. A. (2011). Controversy as news discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Crockett, Z. (2019, June). The restaurant owner who asked for 1-star Yelp reviews. The Hustle, Retrieved: https://thehustle.co/botto-bistro-1-star-yelp/.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, J. (2013). Deep rhetoric: Philosophy, reason, violence, justice, wisdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. (2005). Debating with myself and debating with others. In Barrotta, P. & Dascal, M. (Eds.), Controversies and subjectivity (pp. 31–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (2006). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: The art of controversy. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (2008). Dichotomies and types of debate. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Depew, D. (2010). Revisiting Richard McKeon’s architectonic rhetoric: A response to “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts.” In Porrovecchio, M. (Ed.), Reengaging the prospects of rhetoric: Current conversations and contemporary challenges (pp. 37–56). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. (1991). Cinders. (Trans. by N. Lukacher.) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1903). Studies in logical theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1941). Propositions, warranted assertibility, and truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 38(7), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobber, M., & van Oers, B. (2015) The role of the teacher in promoting dialogue and polylogue during inquiry activities in primary education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(4), 326–341.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doury, M. (2005). The accusation of amalgame as a meta-argumentative refutation. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 145–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2006). Evaluating analogy: Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative norms. In Houtlosser, P. & van Rees, M. A. (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 35–49). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2013). The virtues of argumentation from an amoral analyst’s perspective. Informal Logic, 33(4), 486–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (1970). Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy, 67(24), 1007–1023.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (1972). Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review, 81(4), 411–437.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2015). Democratic agents of justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(4), 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2019). The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1982). Realism. Synthese, 52(1), 55–112.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1993). Origins of analytical philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dutlih Novaes, C. (2015). A dialogical, multi-agent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica, 69(4), 587–609.Google Scholar
Dutlih Novaes, C. (2020). The dialogical roots of deduction: Historical, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives on reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutlih Novaes, C. & Uckelman, S. L. (2016). Obligationes. In Dutlih Novaes, C. & Read, S. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to medieval logic (pp. 370–395). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (Ed.) (2001). Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271–291.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H., van & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic manoeuvring: Maintaining a delicate balance. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock, (Ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., Ihnen, C., & Lewiński, M. (2010). Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In Reed, C. & Tindale, C. (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument (pp. 115–132). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egres, D. (2021). Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenlauer, V. (2014). Facebook as a third author: (Semi-)automated participation framework in Social Network Sites. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 73–85.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Maynard, D. W. (2011). Pragmatism and ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 34(1), 221–261.Google Scholar
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Eriksson, O., Johannesson, P., & Bergholtz, M. (2018). Institutional ontology for conceptual modeling. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 105–123.Google Scholar
Farivar, (2014, September), Why this tiny Italian restaurant gives a discount for bad Yelp reviews. Ars Technica. Retrieved: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/why-this-tiny-italian-restaurant-gives-a-discount-for-bad-yelp-reviews/Google Scholar
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2003). Dialectics, evaluation, and argument. Informal Logic, 23(1), 19–49.Google Scholar
Floridi, L. (2003). Two approaches to the philosophy of information. Minds and Machines, 13, 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floridi, L. (2017). Digital’s cleaving power and its consequences. Philosophy & Technology, 30(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, D., Harris, D.W., & Moss, M. (Eds.) (2018). New work on speech acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Forguson, L. (2001). Oxford and the “epidemic” of ordinary language philosophy. The Monist, 84(3), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R. (1985). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable premises: An epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. (2008). Communication principles for controversies: A historical perspective. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 109–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of the history of logic. Volume 1: Greek, Indian and Arabic logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1948/2006). Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952/2008). Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Garssen, B., & Laar, J. A. van (2010). A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic, 30(2), 122–141.Google Scholar
Gauthier, D. P. (1963). Practical reasoning: The structure and foundations of prudential and moral arguments and their exemplification in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1990). Walking together: A paradigmatic social phenomenon. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 15(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glock, H-J. (2008). What is analytic philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godden, D. (2005). Deductivism as an interpretive strategy: A reply to Groarke’s recent defense of reconstructive deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(3), 168–183.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. The American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Goldkuhl, G., & Lyytinen, K. (1982). A language action view of information systems. In Ginzberg, M. & Ross, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Systems, 13–15 December 1982 (pp. 13–30). Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18 (Spring), 214–227.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. (2012). The personal, technical, and public spheres: A note on twenty-first century critical communication inquiry. Argument and Advocacy, 48(4), 258–267.Google Scholar
Goodnight, G. T. (2014). From architectonics to polytechtonics: Rhetoric, communication, and information. Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention, 10(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In Grimshaw, A. D. (Ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 85–117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In Duranti, A. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222–244). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing issues. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof or argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2005). The public sphere and the norms of transactional argument. Informal Logic, 25(2),151–165.Google Scholar
Goodwin, P. D., & Wenzel, J. W. (1979). Proverbs and practical reasoning: A study in socio-logic. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65(3), 289–302.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1992). What is a good argument? Metaphilosophy, 23(4), 393–409.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (2007). Two is a small number: False dichotomies revisited. In Hansen, H. V. et al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground, Proceedings of OSSA 8, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10). Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (2009). More on dichotomization: Flip-flops of two mistakes. In Ritola, J. (Ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 9, CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, S. (2013). Multivoiced decisions. A study of migrants’ inner dialogue and its connection to social argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 55–80.Google Scholar
Greco, S. (2016). Analysing multiple addressivity in research interviews: A methodological suggestion from argumentation theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 8, 61–74.Google Scholar
Greco, S., & De Cock, B. (2021). Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability. Journal of Pragmatics, 174, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. (2017). Speech acts. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/speech-acts/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, R. W., & Hayes, H. A. (2012). Rhetorical materialism: The cognitive division of labor and the social dimensions of argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(3), 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, A. (2017). Radical technologies: The design of everyday life. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groarke, L. (1999). Deductivism within pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 13(1), 1–16,Google Scholar
Grosjean, M. (2004). From multi-participant talk to genuine polylogue: Shift-change briefing sessions at the hospital. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 25–52.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1970) Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13(1–4), 360–375.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. (Trans. by T. McCarthy.) Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Trans. by T. Burger.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962.)Google Scholar
Halstrøm, P. L. (2014). Design as value celebration: Rethinking design argumentation. Design Issues, 1(1), 51–66.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37(2), 130–155.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2003). The federalist with letters of “Brutus”. Ball, T. (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1778.)Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. W. (1990). Aristotle on dialectic. Philosophy, 65, 465–476.Google Scholar
Hample, D. (1985). A third perspective on argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 18(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Hample, D. (2018). Interpersonal arguing. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (Eds.) (1995). Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building Internet. Journal of Information Technology, 25(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Harsin, J. (2014). Public argument in the new media ecology: Implications of temporality, spatiality, and cognition. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 3(1), 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselbach, A. (1999). Polylogue – a paradigm for cultures: Based on a different notion of ‘polylogue’. Available online at: http://www.inst.at/studies/s_0802_e.htmGoogle Scholar
Haselbach, A. (2000). Learning in polylogues. On processes of social insertion into overlapping cultures. LLinE - Lifelong Learning in Europe, 4, 196–200.Google Scholar
Hauser, G. A. (1998). Civil society and the principle of the public sphere. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 31(1), 19–40.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (1986). ‘Con buenos chiles’: Talk, targets and teasing in Zincantán. Text, 6(3), 249–282.Google Scholar
Heng, M. S. H., & Moor, A. De. (2003). From Habermas’ communicative theory to practice on the internet. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 331–352.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: Argument, asymmetries, power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ihnen Jory, C. (2016). Negotiation and deliberation: Grasping the difference. Argumentation, 30(2), 145–165.Google Scholar
IJsseling, S. (1976). Rhetoric and philosophy in conflict: An historical survey. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (1998). Disputation by design. Argumentation, 12(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. (2002). Designing argumentation protocols for the classroom. In van Eemeren, F.H. (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 105–119). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (2015). Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29(3), 243–263.Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (2019). Reason-giving and the natural normativity of argumentation. Topoi, 38(4), 631–643.Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(3), 251–265.Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Lambert, N. (2016). A computational study of the vaccination controversy. In Mohammed, D. & Lewiński, M. (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Vol. II (pp. 539–552). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation, 3(4), 345–365.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (1999). Argumentation as normative pragmatics. In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (2006). Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s daisy ad. Argumentation, 20(4), 421–442.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002a). What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20(2), 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002b). How to resolve a conflict: Two models of dispute resolution. In van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectis (pp. 29–44). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45(2), 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6(2), 161–176.Google Scholar
Jacquette, D. (2007). Two sides of any issue. Argumentation, 21(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. R. (2019). Investigating illocutionary monism, Synthese, 196(3), 1151–1165.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2002). Interpreting Shell’s ‘Clear Thinking in Troubled Times’. Informal Logic (Teaching Supplement), 21(3), TS39–TS47.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2009). Revisiting the logical/dialectical/rhetorical triumvirate. In Ritola, J. (Ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1–13). Windsor, ON: OSSA. Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/papersandcommentaries/84/Google Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2011). The coherence of Hamblin’s fallacies. Informal Logic, 31(4), 305–317.Google Scholar
Johnstone, H. W. Jr (1952). Philosophy and argumentum ad hominem. The Journal of Philosophy, 49(15), 489–498.Google Scholar
Johnstone, H. W. (1963). Some reflections on argumentation. Logique et Analyse, 6(21), 30–39.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics & Philosophy, 1(1), 3–44.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J., & Innocenti, B. (2018). A normative pragmatic theory of exhorting. Argumentation, 32(4), 463–483.Google Scholar
Keith, W. (2007). Democracy by discussion: Civic education, and the American Forum Movement. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kenyon, T., & Beaulac, G. (2014). Critical thinking education and debiasing. Informal Logic, 34(4), 241–263.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. (2006). Accountability in world politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(2), 75–87.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1997). A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics, 7(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In Gerbrandy, J., Marx, M., de Rijke, M. & Venema, Y. (Eds.), JFAK. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday (pp. 25–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2000). Meeting in the house of Callias: Rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation, 14(3), 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues (pp. 83–90). In van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 83–90). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2006). Logic and games. In Houtlosser, P. & van Rees, M. A. (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 185–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2007). On how to get beyond the opening stage. Argumentation, 21, 233–242.Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013) Topical roots of formal dialectic. Argumentation, 27(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Krasny, J. (2014, September). The brilliance of Botto Bistro, the worst-rated restaurant on Yelp. Inc. Retrieved: https://www.inc.com/jill-krasny/botto-bistro-proves-yelp-reviews-are-meaningless.html.Google Scholar
Krauss, C., & Mouawad, J. (2014). Accidents surge as oil industry takes the train. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/business/energy-environment/accidents-surge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (1978). Polylogue. Contemporary Literature, 19(3), 336–350. [Lovitt, C. R. & Reilly, A. (trans.).]Google Scholar
Kukla, R. (2014). Performative force, convention, and discursive injustice. Hypatia, 29(2), 440–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laar, J. A. van, & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2018a). Splitting a difference of opinion: The shift to negotiation. Argumentation, 32(3), 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laar, J. A. van, & Krabbe, E. C. W. (2018b). The role of argument in negotiation. Argumentation, 32(4), 549–567.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. (2021). The epistemology of groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81.Google Scholar
Lance, M., & Kukla, R. (2013). ‘Leave the gun; take the cannoli’: The pragmatic topography of second-person calls. Ethics, 123(3), 456–478.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2008). A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk). In Hackne, F., Glynne, J. & Minto, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the Design History Society – Falmouth, September 3–6, 2009 (pp. 1–13). Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
Leal, F. (2019). On philosophical argumentation: Towards a pragma-dialectical solution of a puzzle. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14(3), 241–254.Google Scholar
Leff, M. (2006). Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument. In Houtlosser, P. & van Rees, M. A. (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 199–210). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lennox, J. G. (1994). Aristotelian problems. Ancient Philosophy, 14, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5–6), 365–399.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Drew, P. & Wootton, A. (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161–227). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “Interaction Engine.” In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, Stephen C. (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 39–69). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2010). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(2), 86–105.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation, 25(4), 469–497.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2012). The paradox of charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403–439.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2013). Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 151–177.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2016). Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues. Discourse & Communication, 10(6), 553–575.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2017a). Argumentation theory without presumptions. Argumentation, 31(3), 591–613.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2017b). Practical argumentation as reasoned advocacy. Informal Logic, 37(2), 85–113.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2018). Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. In Oswald, S., Herman, T. & Jacquin, J. (Eds.), Argumentation and language. Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations (pp. 219–241). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2019). Argumentative discussion: The rationality of what? Topoi, 38(4), 645–658.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2021a). Illocutionary pluralism. Synthese, 199(3–4), 6687–6714.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2021b). Conclusions of practical argument: A speech act analysis. Organon F, 28(2), 420–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2021c). Speech act pluralism in argumentative polylogues. Informal Logic, 41(3), 421–451.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M. (2014). Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2012). Deliberate design or unintended consequences: The argumentative uses of Facebook during the Arab Spring. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2015). Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In Palczewski, C. (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the Eighteenth NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2016). Argumentation theory. In Jensen, K. B., Craig, R., Pooley, J. & Rothenbuhler, E. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (2019). The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S. (2013). When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 , 164–177.Google Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A. (2019). Environmental argumentation: Introduction. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339–359.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, S. W. (1996). Communication Theory. In Enos, T. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition: Communication from ancient times to the information age (pp. 117–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A., & Oetzel, J. G. (2016). Theories of human communication. 11th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, P. (1987). Constructive philosophy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., & Bou-Franch, P. (2011). On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2578–2259.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. (2014). Living words: Meaning underdetermination and the dynamic lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, P. (2019). Interperspectival content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, K. (1985). Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 9(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. N. (2018). Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach. Argumentation, 32(4), 519–547.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, J. (1990). Four dialogue systems. Studia Logica, 49, 567–583.Google Scholar
Malink, M. (2015). The beginnings of formal logic: Deduction in Aristotle’s Topics vs. Prior Analytics. Phronesis, 60, 267–309.Google Scholar
Mandeville, B. (1714/1988). The fable of the bees: Or, private vices, publick benefits. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.Google Scholar
Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Matias, J. N. & Mou, M. (2018). Civil Servant: Community-led experiments in platform governance. CHI ‘18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–13.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1984). Inside plea bargaining: The language of negotiation. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (1986). Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Human Studies, 9, 261–285.Google Scholar
McGowan, M. K. (2019). Just words: On speech and hidden harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. (1954). Dialectic and political thought and action. Ethics, 65(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. (1971/1987). The uses of rhetoric in a technological age: Architectonic productive arts. In Backman, M. (Ed.), Rhetoric: Essays in invention and discovery (pp. 1–26). Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. (1973). Creativity and the commonplace. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(4), 199–210.Google Scholar
McMahon, C. (2001). Collective rationality and collective reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74.Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Merry, D. (2016). The philosopher and the dialectician in Aristotle’s Topics. History and Philosophy of Logic, 37(1), 78–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority/minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 3–30.Google Scholar
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Misak, C. (2013). The American pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohammed, D. (2016). Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245.Google Scholar
Mohammed, D. (2019). Standing standpoints and argumentative associates: What is at stake in a public political argument? Argumentation, 33(3), 307–322.Google Scholar
Moor, A. de, & Aakhus, M. (2006). Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musi, E., & Aakhus, M. (2018). Discovering argumentative patterns in energy polylogues: A macroscope for argument mining. Argumentation, 32(3), 397–430.Google Scholar
Musi, E., & Aakhus, M. (2019). Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 112–135.Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161.Google Scholar
Nieuwenburg, P. (2004). Learning to deliberate: Aristotle on truthfulness and public deliberation. Political Theory, 32(4), 449–467.Google Scholar
North, D. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oers, B. van, & Dobber, M. (2013). Communication and regulation in a problem-oriented primary school curriculum. In Whitebread, D., Mercer, N., Howe, C., & Tolmie, C. (Eds.), Self-regulation and dialogue in primary classrooms. British Journal of Educational Psychology monograph series II: Psychological aspects of education – current trends, No. 10 (pp. 93–110). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 80–103.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121–128.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In Cox, J. R., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Oliveras-Moreno, C., Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2018). Apologia in a networked society: The case of Volkswagen’s polylogical challenge. In Oswald, S. & Maillat, D. (Eds.), Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II, pp. 561-579). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pagin, P. (2008). What is communicative success? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38(1), 85–115.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2016). Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations. Argumentation, 30(4), 467–499.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2017). Practical reasoning in corporate communication with multiple audiences. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R., & Musi, E. (2020). Trust-repair strategies in crisis rhetorical (sub-)arenas: An argumentative perspective. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(4), 272–293.Google Scholar
Parker, G., van Altstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.) (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.Google Scholar
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2(3), 140–157.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. (Trans. by W. Kluback.) Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1977.)Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. (Trans. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver.) Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (Ed.) (2021). Argumentation through languages and cultures. Special Issue of Argumentation, 35(1), 1–99.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, J. (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79–112). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In Trent, J. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the twenty-first century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2018). Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pralle, S. B. (2003). Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. Journal of Public Policy, 23(3), 233–260.Google Scholar
Price, H. (2003). Truth as convenient friction. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(4), 167–190.Google Scholar
Priest, G., Beall, J. C., & Armour-Garb, B. (Eds.) (2004). The law of non-contradiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (1989). Simmel, Parsons and the interaction order. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 124–129.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2011). Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and the defining questions of pragmatism. Qualitative Sociology, 34(1), 277–282.Google Scholar
Reed, R. R. (1990). Are Robert’s Rules of Order counterrevolutionary? Rhetoric and the reconstruction of Portuguese politics. Anthropological Quarterly, 63(3), 134–144.Google Scholar
Rehg, W. (2005). Assessing the cogency of arguments: Three kinds of merits. Informal Logic, 25(2), 95–115.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1998). The role of rhetoric in rational argumentation. Argumentation, 12(2), 315–323.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (2006). Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robert, H. M. (1876). Robert’s rules of order. Chicago, IL: S. C. Griggs & Company.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–69.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, S., Lewiński, M., & Üzelgün, M. A. (2019). Environmental manifestoes: Argumentative strategies in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 12–39.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1954). Formal and informal logic. In Ryle, G., Dilemmas: The Tarner lectures 1953 (pp. 111–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1966). Plato’s progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1968a/2009). Thinking and reflecting. In ‘The human agent’, Royal Institute of Philosophy lectures, vol. I, 1966–1967, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Reprinted in Ryle, G. (2009). Collected papers, Volume 2: Collected essays 1929–1968 (pp. 479–493). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1968b/2009). The thinking of thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur’ doing? University Lectures, 18, 1968. Reprinted in Ryle, G. (2009). Collected Papers, Volume 2: Collected Essays 1929–1968 (pp. 494–510). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Vol. I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn- taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M. (2013). Some remarks about speech act pluralism. In Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., & Carapezza, M. (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy (pp. 227–244). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2004). From contextualism to contrastivism. Philosophical Studies, 119(1–2), 73–103.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. R. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (2008). Ciceronian dialogue. In Goldhill, S. (Ed.), The end of dialogue in antiquity (pp. 63–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schwartzman, H.B. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Sciulli, D. (1992). Habermas, critical theory, and the relativistic predicament. Symbolic Interaction, 15(3), 299–313.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975a). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Günderson, K. (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge, vol. 7 (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975b). Indirect speech acts. In Morgan, P. C. J. L. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 401–415). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1992). Conversation. In Searle, J. R. et al. (Eds.) (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seibold, D. R., McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., Tanita, N. E., & Canary, D.I. (1981). Argument, group influence, and decision outcomes. In Ziegelmueller, C. & Rhodes, J. (Eds.), Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Second SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 663–692). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336.Google Scholar
Seitz, F. (2020). Argumentation evolved: But how? Coevolution of coordinated group behavior and reasoning. Argumentation, 34(2), 237–260.Google Scholar
Siegel, H., & Biro, J. (2008). Rationality, reasonableness, and critical rationalism: Problems with the pragma-dialectical view. Argumentation, 22(2), 191–203.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (Wolff, Kurt H., trans. & ed.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published 1910.)Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd Edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Simons, H. W. (1994). “Going Meta”: Definition and political applications. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80(4), 468–481.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008). A contrastivist manifesto. Social Epistemology, 22(3), 257–270.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Last updated June 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/Google Scholar
Slomkowski, P. (1997). Aristotle’s topics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Smart, P. (2018). Mandevillian intelligence. Synthese, 195(9), 4169–4200.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1993). Aristotle on the uses of dialectic. Synthese, 96(3), 335–358.Google Scholar
Snedegar, J. (2015). Contrastivism about reasons and ought. Philosophy Compass, 10(6), 379–388.Google Scholar
Sousa Santos, B. de. (2018). The end of the cognitive empire. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spranzi, M. (2011). The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Under, P. (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–213). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721.Google Scholar
Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Streitfeld, D. (2017, May 21). ‘The Internet is broken.’ New York Times, Section BU pp. 1.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme, 3(3), 192–213.Google Scholar
Sylvan, R. (1985). Introducing polylogue theory. Philosophica, 35(1), 89–112.Google Scholar
Szabla, M., & Blommaert, J. (2020). Does context really collapse in social media interaction? Applied Linguistics Review, 11(2), 251–279.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. (2012). Rethinking the Good: Moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. F. (1935). The joking relationship and organized obscenity in North Queensland. American Anthropologist, 37(3), 460–490.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Tindale, C.W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tindale, C.W. (2015). The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomić, T. (2013). False dilemma: A systematic exposition. Argumentation, 27(4), 347–368.Google Scholar
Tomić, T. (2021). The distinction between false dilemma and false disjunctive syllogism. Informal Logic, 41(4), 607–639.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument (2nd edition 2003). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2004). Interlocutive ‘crowding’ and ‘splitting’ in polylogues: The case of a researchers’ meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., Fernandes-Jesus, M., & Küçükural, Ö. (2022). Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: Argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 58(2), 102–122.Google Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. (2016). Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: Arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication, 38(6), 699–723.Google Scholar
Üzelgün, M. A., Mohammed, D., Lewiński, M., & Castro, P. (2015). Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies, 17(4), 467–484.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, A. L. (2015). Identity as a resource to shape mediation in dialogic interaction. Language and Dialogue, 5(3), 355–380.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. (1994). Socratic studies. Ed. by Burnyeat, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Volkmer, I. (2014). The global public sphere: Public communication in the age of reflective interdependence. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (1997). Cross cultural communication problems in Aboriginal Australia. Discussion paper no. 7/1997. Casuarina, NT: North Australia Research Unit.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1998). The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2004). Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2007). Evaluating practical reasoning. Synthese, 157(2), 197–240.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Welch, J. (1990). Llull and Leibniz: The logic of discovery. Catalan Review, 4 (1–2), 75–83.Google Scholar
Wenzel, J. W. (1979). Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Schuetz, J. & Trapp, R. (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Wiener, A. (2019, April 27). Jack Dorsey’s TED interview and the end of an era. The New Yorker, Retrieved: www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/jack-dorseys-ted-interview-and-the-end-of-an-eraGoogle Scholar
Willard, C. A. (1982). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Willard, C. A. (1996). Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wimmer, F. M. (1998). Introduction. In Special issue on intercultural philosophy. Topoi, 17(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Wimmer, F. M. (2007). Cultural centrisms and intercultural polylogues in philosophy. International Review of Information Ethics, 7 (9), 1–8.Google Scholar
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Witek, M. (2021). Illocution and accommodation in the functioning of presumptions. Synthese, 198(7), 6207–6244.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. 3rd ed. G.E.M. Anscombe & R. Rhees (Eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1953.)Google Scholar
Wohn, D. Y., Fiesler, C., Hemphill, L., De Choudhury, M., & Matias, J. N. (2017). How to handle online risks? Discussing content curation and moderation in social media. In CHI 2017 Extended Abstracts - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Explore, Innovate, Inspire (Vol. Part F127655, pp. 1271–1276). Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Yack, B. (2006). Rhetoric and public reasoning: An Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Political Theory, 34(4), 417–438.Google Scholar
Yost, M. (1917). Argument from the point-of-view of sociology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 3(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2008). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22(3), 317–330.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2014). Political argumentation in the United States. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2019). The practice of argumentation: Effective reasoning in communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ziek, P. (2013). CSR infrastructure for communication and the Nike controversy. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3(1), 63–73.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Marcin Lewiński, NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal, Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book: Argumentation in Complex Communication
  • Online publication: 22 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009274364.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Marcin Lewiński, NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal, Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book: Argumentation in Complex Communication
  • Online publication: 22 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009274364.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Marcin Lewiński, NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal, Mark Aakhus, Rutgers University, New Jersey
  • Book: Argumentation in Complex Communication
  • Online publication: 22 February 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009274364.012
Available formats
×