Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Pathos in Natural Language Argumentation: Emotional Appeals and Reactions.Barbara Konat, Ewelina Gajewska & Wiktoria Rossa - 2024 - Argumentation 38 (3):369-403.
    In this paper, we present a model of pathos, delineate its operationalisation, and demonstrate its utility through an analysis of natural language argumentation. We understand pathos as an interactional persuasive process in which speakers are performing pathos appeals and the audience experiences emotional reactions. We analyse two strategies of such appeals in pre-election debates: pathotic Argument Schemes based on the taxonomy proposed by Walton et al. (Argumentation schemes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008), and emotion-eliciting language based on psychological lexicons of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentative Use and Strategic Function of the Expression ‘Not for Nothing’.Henrike Jansen & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2020 - Argumentation 34 (2):143-162.
    In English discourse one can find cases of the expression ‘not for nothing’ being used in argumentation. The expression can occur both in the argument and in the standpoint. In this chapter we analyse the argumentative and rhetorical aspects of ‘not for nothing’ by regarding this expression as a presentational device for strategic manoeuvring. We investigate under which conditions the proposition containing the expression ‘not for nothing’ functions as a standpoint, an argument or neither of these elements. It is also (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)“Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment.Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen - 2020 - Argumentation 35 (2):209-235.
    In response to an accusation of having said something inappropriate, the accused may exploit the difference between the explicit contents of their utterance and its implicatures. Widely discussed in the pragmatics literature are those cases in which arguers accept accountability only for the explicit contents of what they said while denying commitment to the implicature. In this paper, we sketch a fuller picture of commitment denial. We do so, first, by including in our discussion not just denial of implicatures, but (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations