Comment page 12 add more here re why using these

Info iconThis preview shows pages 12–13. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Comment: Page: 12 add more here re why using these categories rather than others. Also, if descriptive endeavour is to work, then more modes must be included. Why these? They cover a lot of territory without making the taxonomy unwieldly. Comment: Page: 12 the model may also go a ways toward explaining why various communities are unable to communicate. They are using incommensurable modes while at the same time excluding others. Religious apologists who claim that \Your intellectual arguments don¡t faze me because I have faith,] rule the problem of evil and other anti-religious considerations out of court. Comment: Page: 12 perhaps we can add more here wrt fallacies: they are not really in favour, but that may be because they are more context dependent than we had though. The modes are context sensitive and, therefore, might be friendlier to fallacies. M.A. GILBERT MULTI-MODAL ARGUMENTATION PHIL OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES VOL 24 NR 2 .13 References Balthrop, Bill. 1980. "Argument As Linguistic Opportunity: A Search For Form and Function." In Rhodes & Newell. Brockriede, W. 1975. "Where Is Argument?" Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13:129-132. Burleson, Brant. 1981. "The Senses of Argument Revsisited." SCA Proceedings. Copi, Irving M. 1961. Introduction to Logic, second edition.. MacMillan. New York. Cox, J.R., & Willard, C.A., 1982. Advances in Argumentation Theory & Research . AFA/SIU Press, IL. Dillard, James P. 1990. \The Nature and Substance of Goals in Tactical communications], in Cody, M.J. and McLaughlin, M.L., eds. The Psychology of Tactical Communication . Multilingual Matters Ltd., Avon, England. Eemeren, van F. & Grootendorst, R. 1983 Speech Acts In Argumentative Discourse. Foris. Dordrecht. _____________. 1989. "Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective." Argumentation , 2:271-292. Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn¡t So. The Free Press. New York, Toronto. Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S., 1980. "Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme." QJS , 66:251-265. Kneupper, Charles W. 1981. "Argument: A Social Constructivist Perspective". Journal of the American Forensic Association, 17:183-189 . O'Keefe, D.J. 1977. "Two concepts of Argument." Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13:121-128. ____________. 1982. "The Concepts of Argument & Arguing." In Cox & Willard, 3:23. Perelman, Ch. 1979. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities. Reidel. Dordrecht, Holland. Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969. The New Rhetoric . U. Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. (orig Fr. 1958). N Rhodes,J. & Newell, S., eds. 1980. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, [1979¡. SCA/AFA Toulmin, Stephen. 1969 . The Uses Of Argument. Cambridge UP. Cambridge. Warren, K. 1988. "Critical Thinking and Feminism." Informal Logic , 10:1. Wenzel, J. 1980. "Perspectives On Argument." In Rhodes & Newell. Willard, C.A.,1981. \The Status of the Non-Discursiveness Thesis.] JAFA 17:191-214. _______. 1983. Argumentation & the Social Grounds of Knowledge. Univ of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. _______. 1989. A Theory Of Argumentation . Uuniversity of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page12 / 13

Comment Page 12 add more here re why using these categories...

This preview shows document pages 12 - 13. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online