Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • How do Culture, Individual Traits, and Context Influence Koreans’ Interpersonal Arguing? Toward a More Comprehensive Analysis of Interpersonal Arguing.Youllee Kim, Sungeun Chung & Dale Hample - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):117-141.
    This research explores the dynamics of interpersonal arguing in South Korea by considering cultural influence, individual traits, and contexts. In a cross-cultural study where Koreans were compared to U.S. Americans on basic measures of argument orientations, several interesting contrasts emerged, along with considerable similarity. Koreans evaluated conflicts more positively than Americans even though they were more worried about the relational consequences of arguing. Within the Korean sample, sex difference was pronounced. Study 2 found that power distance orientation was critical individual-level (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Camouflaging Truth: A Biological, Argumentative and Epistemological Outlook from Biological to Linguistic Camouflage.Tommaso Bertolotti, Emanuele Bardone & Lorenzo Magnani - 2014 - Journal of Cognition and Culture 14 (1-2):65-91.
    Camouflage commonly refers to the ability to make something appear as different from what it actually is, or not to make it appear at all. This concept originates from biological studies to describe a range of strategies used by organisms to dissimulate their presence in the environment, but it is frequently borrowed by other semantic fields as it is possible to camouflage one’s position, intentions, opinion etc.: an interesting conceptual continuum between the multiple denotations of camouflage seems to emerge from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Argument Predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Argument Frames, and Personalization of Conflict.Yun Xie, Dale Hample & Xiaoli Wang - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):265-284.
    China has a longstanding tradition of stressing the values of harmony and coherence, and Chinese society has often been portrayed as a culture in which conflict avoidance is viewed more positively than direct confrontation and argumentation. In order to evaluate the validity of this claim, this paper sketches Chinese people’s feelings and understandings about interpersonal arguing by reporting results of a data collection in China, using measures of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. These results were compared (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Características psicosociales y densidad argumentativa en adultos mayores.Cristián Noemi & Sebastián Rossel - 2019 - Logos: Revista de Lingüística, Filosofía y Literatura 29 (1):182-195.
    This work pretends to unveil the relationship between the psychosocial features grouped under the argument frame concept and the degree of discursive density that is reached by a sample of 243 older adults in the production of argumentative discourses. In order to specify the main psychosocial features of the sample’s subjects, the Hample test was employed. In order to evaluate argumentative density, all of the participants were asked for an essay about a controversial situation derived from the Dilemma of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Cross-Cultural Study of Argument Orientations of Turkish and American College Students: Is Silence Really Golden and Speech Silver for Turkish Students?Yeliz Demir & Dale Hample - 2019 - Argumentation 33 (4):521-540.
    In this paper, we report on the orientations of Turkish college students to interpersonal arguing and compare them with American students’ predispositions for arguing. In measuring the argument orientations, a group of instruments was utilized: argument motivations, argument frames, and taking conflict personally. Turkish data come from 300 college students who were asked to complete self-report surveys. Analyses contrast the mean scores of the Turkish and American respondents, offer gender-based comparisons in the Turkish data, and show whether religiosity has an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Arguing to Display Identity.Dale Hample & Amanda L. Irions - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (4):389-416.
    A rarely studied motive for engaging in face-to-face arguing is to display one’s identity. One way people can manage their impressions is to give reasons for their commitments. This appears to be the first study to focus on this reason for arguing. 461 undergraduates recalled an episode in which they had argued to display own identity. They filled out trait measures as well as instruments describing the episode. Identity display arguments do not require controversy, are not very emotional episodes, can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations