Part of
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 225254


Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W.
(1978) “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator, 7: 307–341.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi
(2006) “Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences.” Discourse & Society, 17(2):173–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Alan
(1985) “A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63(1): 50–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995) “The Ad Hominem.” In Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Copi, Iving M.
(1972) Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
(2005) Theory and Practice for Spokespersons, Chengdu: Sichuan people′s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Dou, Wei L. and Zhang, Xiao Y.
(2008) “A Comparative Study of the Dodging Strategy Adopted by Chinese and American Spokespersons: The case of the North Korean nuclear issue.” Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching, 4: 53–57.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Garssen, Bart and Meuffels, Bert
(2012) “The Disguised Abusive ad hominem Empirically Investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks.” Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3): 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Grootendorst, Rob
(1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1993) “The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century”. In Empirical logic and public debate: Essays in honour of Else M. Barth, ed. by Erik C. W. Krabbe, Renee J. Dalitz, and Pier A. Smit, 49–68. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guang, Ke
(2010) “Pragmatic Vagueness of Spokespersons in Sino-US Foreign Affairs’ Departments.” Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 13(2): 93–97.Google Scholar
(2013) “Construction of Spokesperson’s Discourse: An Approach of Western New Rhetoric.” Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), 16(4): 153–156.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hong, Gang and Chen, Qian F.
(2011) “A Contrastive Study of the Refusal Strategies Employed by Chinese and American Spokespersons.” Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43(2): 209–219.Google Scholar
Hu, Geng S. and Wang, Jing
(2001) “The Analysis of the Language Use in Sino-foreign Press Conferences.” Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 16(3): 83–88.Google Scholar
Kahane, Howard
(1973) Logic and philosophy. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Lan, Chun and Hu, Yi
(2014) “Pragmatic Analysis of Foreign Ministry Spokesman’s Dodge Answer.” Chinese Foreign Language, 6: 21–28.Google Scholar
Li, Xi G. and Sun, Jing W.
(2007) Course Book for Spokespersons. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John
(1960) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Ma, Zhi Q.
(2013) The Art of Language Communication. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House.Google Scholar
Minot, Walter S.
(1981) A Rhetorical View of Fallacies: Ad Hominem and Ad Populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11(4): 222–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
(1964) Introduction to Logic. New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Tu, Guang J. & Gong, He
(2009) “A Political Rhetorical Analysis of Official Press Release on Tibet in China and America.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 8: 32–37.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard
(1848) Elements of Logic. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas N.
(1989) Fallacies: selected papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wu, Peng and Xiong, Ming H.
(2015) “Strategic Maneuvering: A Rhetorical Extension of Pragma-Dialectics.” Journal of Fujian Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 3: 64–69.Google Scholar
Wu, Peng and Zhu, Mi
(2015) “A Research on Pragma-dialectical Approach of Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Argumentative Replies at the Press Conference: Take Liu Weimin’s Reply about the Sino-US Tombarthite Trade Friction as Case Study.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 9: 52–69.Google Scholar
Xiong, Yong H. and Peng, Xiao M.
(2009) “An Analysis on the Pragmatic Strategy of Diplomatic Language: A Study on the Remarks at Press Conference Held by Foreign Ministry spokesman.” Journal of Hunan Agricultural University, 3: 71–74.Google Scholar
Yang, Yuan and Tian, Tian
(2006) “An Analysis of the Use of Convert Evasion by China Foreign Ministry Spokesmen and Its Pragmatic Functions.” Hubei University of Technology, 6: 121–124.Google Scholar
Yang,Yao Z.
(2015) “Narrative Rhetoric Study on News Conference of China and Japan in the Case of Maritime Collision.” Journal of Zhongzhou University, 2: 89–92.Google Scholar
Yang, Zheng Q.
(2005) Theory and Practice for Spokespersons. Beijing: Communication University of China Press.Google Scholar
Yao, Xi S.
(2010) “Language Style of Spokesperson’s Presentation”. Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 1: 28–29.Google Scholar
Zhang, Tao F.
(2005) “Spokesperson: Skills Determine Success or Failure”. Decision, 4: 49–51.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yang
(2009) “On Spokesperson’s Language Style.” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences), 6: 59–64.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Liu, Donghong
2023. Pragma-dialectical perspective to intercultural discussion as communicative activity. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.