(2002) The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air (Vol. 15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craig, R. T.
(1986) Goals in discourse. In D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes (pp. 257–74). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Craig, R. T.
(1990) Multiple goals in discourse: An epilogue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 16–170.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels, B.
(2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1982) Arguing and convincing. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1–24.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Fortis Publications.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1987) Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1992a) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1992b) Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6(2), 141–159.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1995) Argumentum ad hominem: A pragma-dialectical case in point. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 223–228). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(1999) Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1/4, 479–497.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2002a) Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication & culture: Selected papers from the twelfth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 67–75). Washington DC: National Communication Association.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2002b) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2003a) The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation, 17(4), 387–403.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2003b) More about fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The case of tu quoque. In H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications: Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2005) Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 75–84). Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2006) Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20(4), 381–392.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2007a) Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2007b) Reconnecting dialectic and rhetoric: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Anthropology and Philosophy, 8(1–2), 49–67.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2008) Within the bounds of reason: Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. In K. Korta & J. Garmendia (Eds.), Meaning, intentions and argumentation (pp. 1–27). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(2009) Seizing the occasion: Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 3–14). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2007a) Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2007b) Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proceedings of the OSSA Conference 2007. [CD-ROM]. Windsor, ON: University of Windsor.
Eisenberg, E. M.
(1984) Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51(3), 227–242.
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N.
(2012) Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
Fetzer, A.
(2002) ‘Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem’. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 173–202). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Freeman, J. B.
(1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of argument: A theory of structure. Berlin: Foris/London: Routledge.
Habermas, J.
(1970) Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 13(1–4), 360–375.
Hamblin, C. L.
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen – Elsevier
Harris, S.
(1986) Interviewers’ questions in broadcast interviews. In J. Wilson and B. Crow (Eds.), Belfast working papers in language and linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 50–85). Jordanstown: University of Ulster.
Hay, C.
(2007) Why we hate politics? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hitchcock, D.
(2007) Is there an argumentum ad hominem fallacy? In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson (pp. 187–200). Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
House of Commons Information Office
(2005) Parliamentary Questions. Factsheet 1. Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(1997) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1997: Debate on arrangements of Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 781, cc. 796–797). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2002) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 2002: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 379, cc. 853–854). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2004) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 May 2004: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 421, cc. 970–975). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2006) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 2006: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 450, cc. 866–877). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jan 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 471, cc. 308). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 340). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008c) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Mar 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 472, cc. 1740). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008d) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Oct 2008: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 481, cc. 885–886). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008e) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 05 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 482, cc. 243–4). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2008f) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Nov 2008 (pt 0002): Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 483, cc. 228–229). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2010a) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 October 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 516, cc. 420–431). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2010b) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 2010: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 517, cc. 913–923). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2015) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Jan 2015: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 590, cc. 262–272). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2016) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Oct 2016: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 615, cc. 293–306). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons official report
(2017) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Oct 2017: Prime Minister’s Question Time (Vol. 629, cc. 321–335). Retrieved from [URL]
House of Commons Procedure Committee
(2002) Parliamentary Questions: Third report of session 2001–02. Retrieved from [URL]
Jack, M., Hutton, M., Johnson, C., Millar, D., Patrick, S., & Sandal, L.
(1980) Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S., & Stearns, S.
(1991) Digressions in argumentative discourse: Multiple goals, standing concerns, and implicatures. In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 43–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1990) Inconsistent commitments or commitment to inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 7(1), 33–42.
Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1992) So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 6(2), 271–83.
Krabbe, E. C. W.
(2001) The problem of retraction in critical discussion. Synthese, 127, 141–159.
Krabbe, E. C. W.
(2002) Profiles of dialogue as a dialectical tool. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Laar, J. A. van
(2006) Don’t say that. Argumentation, 20(4), 495–510.
Laar, J. A. van
(2007) Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility. Argumentation, 21(3), 317–334.
Levinson, S. C.
(1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5), 365–399.
Levinson, S. C.
(1992) Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewiński, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues: Beyond dialectical understanding of fallacies. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(1), 193–218.
Lewiński, M., & Aakhus, M.
(2014) Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2), 161–185.
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
(2015) Tweeting the Arab spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). New York: Routledge.
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D.
(2016) Argumentation theory. In K. B. Jensen, R. Craig, J. Pooley & E. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (pp. 1–15). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S.
(2013) When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 164–177.
Mohammed, D.
(2007) Towards a pragma-dialectical approach to negotiation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 975–982). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
(2015) ‘The revolution must continue’: Strategic maneuvering in post-Mubarak Egypt. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing argument: Selected works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291–297). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mohammed, D.
(2016a) Goals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of public political arguments. Argumentation, 30(3), 221–245.
Mohammed, D.
(2016b) Not just rational, but also reasonable: Critical testing in the service of external purposes of public political arguments. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015 (Vol. 1, pp. 499–514). London: College Publications.
Mohammed, D.
(2016c) What’s in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices. In L. Benacquista & P. Bondy (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–23 May 2016 (pp. 1–14). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Mohammed, D.
(2016d) ‘It is true that security and Schengen go hand in hand’: Strategic manoeuvring in the multi-layered activity type of European Parliamentary debates. In R. von Borg (Ed.), Dialogues in Argumentation (pp. 232–266). Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
Mohammed, D.
(2018) Arguing inter-issue in public political arguments. In S. Oswald & Maillat, D. (Eds.). Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II, 509–524). London: College Publications.
(2000) ‘Accountability’: An ever-expanding concept. Public Administration, 78(3), 555–73.
Mulgan, R.
(2004) Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nevin, B.
(1994) Quandary/abusive questions: The linguist discussion. List, 5, 754.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pérez de Ayala, S.
(2001) FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting needs? Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 143–169.
Plantin, C.
(1990) Essais sur l’argumentation: introduction linguistique à l’étude de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.
Popper, K. R.
(1971) The open society and its enemies (5th ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Popper, K. R.
(1972) Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Popper, K. R.
(1974) Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rees, M. A. van
(2009) Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rogers, R., & Walters, R.
(2006) How Parliament works. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Schedler, A.
(1999) Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 333–350). Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25.
Stojanovic, I.
(2017) Evaluative Adjectives and Evaluative Uses of Ordinary Adjectives. In M. Otake, S. Kurahashi, Y. Ota, K. Satoh & D. Satoh (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10091. Springer, Cham.
Thomas, S. N.
(1973) Practical reasoning in natural language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Tindale, C. W.
(2007) Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tracy, K.
(1984) The effect of multiple goals on conversational relevance and topic shift. Communication Monographs, 51, 274–287.
Tracy, K., & Coupland, N.
(1990) Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), 1–13.
UK Parliament Web Site
(2018) Glossary. Erskine May. Retrieved from [URL]
Visser, J. C.
(2016) A dialogue game for critical discussion: Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication).
Walton, D. N.
(1987) The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1, 317–331.
Walton, D. N.
(1999) Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13(1), 53–71.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press.
Werlich, E.
(1975) Typologie der texte. Heidelberg, Quelle und Meyer.
Wilson, J.
(1990) Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Woods, J.
(2007) Lightening up on the ad hominem. Informal Logic, 27(1), 109–134.
Zarefsky, D.
(2008) Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation, 22, 317–330.