Article published In:
Argumentative Discourse in Contemporary China: A pragma-dialectical perspective
Edited by Peng Wu and Xu Cihua
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:3] 2017
► pp. 285314
References (35)
References
Barth, Else M. and Krabbe, Erik C. W. 1978. “Formal Dialectics: Instruments for the Resolution of Conflicts about Expressed Opinions.” Spektator 71: 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
Du Jiang. 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 41: 53–57.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 61: 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. and Gong, He. 2009. “A Political Rhetorical Analysis of Official Press Release on Tibet in China and America.” Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication 81: 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 91: 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 31: 71–74.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 21: 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), 11: 28–29.Google Scholar
Zhang, Tao F. 2005. “Spokesperson: Skills Determine Success or Failure”. Decision 41: 49–51.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yang. 2009. “On Spokesperson’s Language Style.” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) 61: 59–64.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Wu, Peng & Tian-bao Zhou
2023. Argumentative patterns based on pragmatic argumentation at China’s diplomatic press conferences. Discourse Studies 25:4  pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3  pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Mochtak, Michal & Richard Q. Turcsanyi
2021. Studying Chinese Foreign Policy Narratives: Introducing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Conferences Corpus. Journal of Chinese Political Science 26:4  pp. 743 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Argumentative Practices. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33],  pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. 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.