2011

 

Articles in peer-reviewed journals

  1. Damele, G. (2011). Cidadãs e Súbditas, Solidárias e Egoistas: As Abelhas como Metáfora na História do Pensamento Político. Revista Portuguesa de Ciência Política, 1-2011, 159-166
  2. Damele G. (2011). Sulle motivazioni della recente sentenza della Corte Costituzionale italiana in materia di matrimonio omosessuale. Un confronto con la giurisprudenza del Tribunal Constitucional portoghese, in “Diritto e Questioni Pubbliche”, 1/2011, pp. 631-661. http://www.dirittoequestionipubbliche.org/page/2011_n11/22_studi%20-%20Damele.pdf
  3. Lewiński, M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation, 25(4), pp. 469–497. http://www.springerlink.com/content/t38506147l853445/
  4. Lewiński, M. (2011). Dialectical trade-offs in the design of protocols for computer-mediated deliberation. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), in print. http://logika.uwb.edu.pl/studies/
  5. Macagno, F. (2011). The presumptions of meaning. Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic, 31(4), 367-393. http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3326
  6. Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2011). Reasoning from Paradigms and Negative Evidence. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19(1), 92-116. http://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/pc.19.1.04mac
  7. Walton, D & Macagno, F. (2011). Quotations and Presumptions - Dialogical Effects of Misquotations. Informal Logic 31(1), 27-55. http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/657

 

Book Chapters

  1. Aakhus, M. & Lewiński, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 165–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  2. Mohammed, D. & Zarefsky, D. (2011). Pragma-dialectical analysis of rhetorical texts: The case of Barack Obama in Cairo. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen and F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 89–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

 

Articles in Conference proceedings

  1. Damele, G., Dogliani, M., Mastropaolo, A., Pallante, F. & Radicioni, D. P. (2011). On Legal Argumentation Techniques: Towards a Systematic Approach. In M.A. Biasiotti, Sebastiano Faro (eds.), From Information to Knowledge. On Line Access to Legal Information: Methodologies, Trends and Perspectives, IOS Press, Amsterdam-Berlin-Tokio-Washington D.C., 2011 (pp. 105-118). http://www.booksonline.iospress.nl/Content/View.aspx?piid=26427
  2. Damele, G., (2011). Rhetoric and Persuasive Strategies in High Courts’ Decisions. Some remarks on the Portuguese Tribunal Constitucional and the Italian Corte Costituzionale. In M. Araszkiewicz, M. Myška, T. Smejkalová, J. Šavelka, M. Skop (eds.), Argumentation 2011. International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law, Masaryk University, Brno, 2011 (pp. 81-94).
  3. Lewiński, M. (2011). Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation? In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011 (pp. 1-15). Windsor: ON (CD ROM).
  4. Lewiński, M. (2011). The collective antagonist: Multiple criticism in informal online deliberation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1089-1101). Amsterdam: SicSat.
  5. Macagno, F. (2011). Implicatures and hierarchies of presumption. In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011 (pp. 1-16), Windsor, ON (CD ROM).
  6. Macagno, F. (2011). Commentary on “The evaluation of emotional arguments: a test run”. In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011 (pp. 1-5), Windsor, ON (CD ROM).
  7. Mohammed, D. (2011). The reasonableness of responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1313-1321). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
  8. Mohammed, D. & Schulz, P. (2011). Argumentative Insights for the Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) (pp. 1322-1333). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
  9. Mohammed, D. (2011). Strategic Manoeuvring in Simultaneous Discussions. In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011 (pp. 1-11), Windsor, ON (CD ROM).
  10. Mohammed, D. (2011). Commentary on “Fallacies: do we "use" them or "commit" them? Or: is all our life just a collection of fallacies?” by Igor Žagar. In F. Zenker (Ed.). Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011 (pp. 1-3), Windsor, ON (CD ROM).
  11. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2011). Burdens of Proof and Persuasion in Everyday Argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The Seventh Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam: SicSat.

 

2010

 

Articles in peer-reviewed journals

  1. Lewiński, M. (2010). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(2), 86–105. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5049806768
  2. Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2010). Ragionare Per Dicotomie - Struttura Argomentativa e Usi nel Common Law. Ars Interpretandi, 15, 167-187.
  3. Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2010). The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación, 1-37. http://e-spacio.uned.es/ojs/index.php/RIA/article/view/4
  4. Macagno, F. & Walton, D. (2010). Dichotomies and Oppositions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris, 23(2), 229-257. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00452.x/abstract;jsessionid=60FD040DEF2CC2B3BC84AE41983F602A.d01t03
  5. Macagno, F., (2010). Definitions in law. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 2, 199-217.
  6. Macagno, F. & Walton. D. (2010). What we hide in words: emotive words and persuasive definitions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1997-2013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216609003191
  7. Mohammed, D. (2010). Ruling out a standpoint by means of an accusation of inconsistency. COGENCY Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation, 2(1), 57-80. http://www.cogency.udp.cl/ediciones/3/Cogency_v2_n1_05.pdf
  8. Mohammed, D. (2010). Responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Controversia: the International Journal of discussion and democratic revival, 7(1), 57-73. http://www.idebate.org/controversia/files/Controversia_PDF4c2ce501712dfjpg
  9. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2010). Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions. Informal Logic, 30(1), 34-61. http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/692
  10. Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from Context: The Manipulation of Commitments. Argumentation, 24(3), 283-317. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p570q267k5m07520/

 

Books

  1. Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type: A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Amsterdam: SicSat. http://dare.uva.nl/record/340631

 

Book Chapters

  1. Eemeren, F.H. van, Houtlosser, P., Ihnen, C., & Lewiński, M. (2010). Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In C. Reed & C. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument (pp. 115–132). London: College Publications. http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/tributes/?00012
  2. Lewiński, M. (2010). Typy aktywności argumentacyjnych a racjonalność argumentacji. Rola kontekstu w w pragma-dialektycznej analizie i o cenie argumentacji. In W. Suchoń, I. Trzcieniecka-Schneider, & D. Kowalski (Eds.), Argumentacja i racjonalna zmiana przekonań (pp. 213–237). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskigo. (Argumentative activity types and rationality of argumentation. The role of context in the pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of argumentation.) http://wuj.pl/page,produkt,prodid,1494,strona,Argumentacja_i_racjonalna_zmiana_przekonan,katid,30.html
  3. Macagno, F. (2010). Dialectical and heuristic arguments: presumptions and burden of proof. In C. Reed and C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument (pp. 45-57). London: College Publications.