Affiliations
Assistant Professor of Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, senior researcher Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication, coordinator Argumentation and Rhetoric Group Amsterdam (ARGA); affiliate researcher Amsterdam Centre for European Studies (ACES); member editorial board journal, Argumentation, Journal of Argumentation in Context and Studies in Communication Sciences.
Monographs
Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 5.
Five selected articles / book chapters
Andone, C., & Lomelí Hernández., J. A. (2019). Scientific arguments in policy-making. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(2), 195-213.
Coman-Kund, F., & Andone, C. (2019). European Commission’s soft law instruments. In between legally binding and non-binding norms. In Popelier, P. et al. (Eds.). Lawmaking in multi-level settings (pp. 173-197), Oxford: Hart and Nomos.
Andone, C., & Greco, S. (2018). Evading the burden of proof in European Union soft law. The case of Commission recommendations. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 31(1), 79-99.
Andone, C. (2016). Argumentative patterns in the political domain. The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation 30(1), 45-60.
Andone, C. (2015). Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability. Argumentation 29(1):,1-18.
Affiliations
Emeritus Professor Emeritus of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of Amsterdam, Guest Professor Leiden University, Jiangsu University, Sun-yat Sen University, Zhejiang University, and Xi’an Jiaotong University.
Co-Director International Institute for Pragma-Dialectics (IIPD), Zhejiang University, Honorary Director Jiangsu University Center for Argumentation Studies (JUCAS), Chair Foundation Sic Sat.
President International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) and International Learned Institute of Argumentation Studies (ILIAS), Distinguished Scholar National Communication Association (US), Doctor Honoris Causa University of Lugano (Switzerland), Knight in the Order of the Dutch Lion.
Editor-in-Chief journal Argumentation, Co-editor Journal of Argumentation in Context, Editor-in-Chief book series Library of Argumentation, Co-editor book series Argumentation in Context.
Monographs
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. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Available in Russian (1994), and Spanish (2013)].
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984b). The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum. [Available in Chinese (1991), Russian (1992), French (1996), Spanish (2002/2007), Bulgarian (2009), and Romanian (2010)]
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Studies in Rhetoric and Communication.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., with Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mawhah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Available in Dutch (1997)].
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Available in Bulgarian (2006), Italian (2008), Spanish (2011), and Arabic (2015)]
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 12.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 16.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2. [republication in English 2016 with Peking University Press, Beijing] [Spanish trans. (2013), Arabic trans., Italian trans., and Chinese trans. In preparation].
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. [Also available as an electronic publication] [Chinese transl. 2020].
Eemeren, F. H. van (2015). Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics. Cham etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27.
Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.) (2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2018). Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 33. [Spanish transl. 2019; Chinese transl. to be published; Russian transl. to be published]
Five selected articles / book chapters
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17(4), 365-386.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2011). In context. Giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. Argumentation 25(2), 141-161.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2013a). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 27(1), 49-70. Special issue on Aristotle and argumentation theory guest-edited by H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.).
Eemeren, F. H. van (2013b). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1), pp. 11-32. Special issue on political argumentation guest-edited by M. Lewinski & M. Mohammed.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2019). Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33(2), 153-171. DOI 10.1007/s10503-019-09478-y.
Affiliations
Associate Professor at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. Member of the research programme of the Argumentation and Rhetoric Group Amsterdam. Her research interests are argumentation theory, legal argumentation theory, and visual argumentation
Monographs
Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of legal decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Available in Chinese (2006) Spanish (2007), Turkish (2010)]
Feteris, E. T. (2017). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of legal decisions. Second completely revised edition. Dordrecht: Springer. [Available in Chinese (2018), Turkish (2019)]
Feteris, E. T. (2020). A pragma-dialectical approach of legal argumentation. Selected essays. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Five selected articles / book chapters
Feteris, E. T. (2009). The rational reconstruction of teleological-evaluative argumentation in complex structures of legal justification. In D. Canale & G. Tuzet (Eds.) The rules of inference. Inferentialism in law and philosophy (pp. 187-199). Milan: Egea.
Feteris, E. T. (2012) Strategic manoeuvring in the case of the ‘Unworthy Spouse’. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149-164, 2012. https://benjamins.com/catalog/aic.4
Feteris, E. T. (2012). The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(2), 234-252. https://benjamins.com/catalog/jaic
Feteris, E. T. (2015). Argumentation from reasonableness in the justification of judicial decisions. In T. Bustamante & C. Dahlman (Eds.), Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation (pp. 179-201). Dordrecht etc.: Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319161471
Feteris, E. T. (2017). The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(1), 44-58. https://benjamins.com/catalog/jaic
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Affiliations
Professor Emeritus of Dutch Discourse Studies Leiden University.
Monographs
Haaften, T. van, Jansen H., Jong J. de, & Koetsenruijter W. (Eds) (2011). Bending opinion. Essays on persuasion in the public domain. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Five selected articles / book chapters
Haaften, T. van (2011). Parliamentary debate and political culture. The Dutch case. In T. van Haaften, Jansen, H., Jong J. de & Koetsenruijter, W. (wds). Bending opinion. Essays on persuasion in the public domain (pp. 349–68). Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Haaften, T. van (2017). Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Dutch parliamentary debate. In Eemeren F. H. van & Wu Peng (Eds). Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 177–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haaften, T. van, & Leeuwen, M. van (2018). Strategic maneuvering with presentational devices. A systematic approach. In Oswald, S. & Maillat, D. (eds). Argumentation and inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Volume II (pp. 873-886). London: College Publications. Studies in Logic 76.
Haaften, T. van (2019). Argumentative strategies and stylistic devices. Informal Logic, 39, 301-328.
Haaften, T. van, & Leeuwen, M. van (2020). Suggesting outsider status by behaving improperly. The linguistic realization of a populist rhetorical strategy in Dutch parliament. In Geest, I. van der, Jansen, H., & Klink B. van (Eds). Vox populi.
Populism as a rhetorical and democratic challenge. Cheltenham etc.: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Affiliation(s)
Professor Department of Education University of Guadalajara, Mexico
Monographs published in English
Under submission:
Leal, Fernando, & Marraud, Hubert. How Philosophers Argue: An Adversarial-Collaborative Study of the 1948 BBC Debate Between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston).
5 prominent articles / book chapters in English
Leal, F. (2013). Leading a philosophical life in dark times. The case of Leonard Nelson and his followers. In M. Chase, S. R. L. Clark, & M. McGhee (Eds.), Philosophy as a way of life. Ancients and Moderns – Essays in honour of Pierre Hadot (pp. 184- 209). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leal, F. (2016). Grete Hermann as a philosopher. In E. Crull & G. Bacciagaluppi (Eds.), Grete Hermann. Between physics and philosophy (pp. 17-34). Dordrecht: Springer.
Leal, F. (2016). Introduction to Leonard Nelson, A theory of philosophical fallacies. Cham: Springer.
Leal, F. (2019). On philosophical argumentation: Towards a pragma-dialectical solution to a puzzle. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(2), 173-194.
Leal, F. (2020). On the importance of questioning within the ideal model of critical discussion. Argumentation 34(4), 405-431.
Affiliations
Francisca Snoeck Henkemans is a retired Associate Professor who worked until 2019 in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam
Monographs
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation; the reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., with Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mawhah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Available in Dutch (1997)].
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 12.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. [Also available as an electronic publication] [Chinese transl. 2020].
Five selected articles / book chapters
Jansen, H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2020). Argumentative use and strategic function of the expression ‘Not for nothing’. Argumentation 34, 143-162.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 93-108).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 139-155).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2015). Reasonableness in context. Taking into account institutional conventions in the pragma-dialectical evaluation of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 217-226). Argumentation Library 28. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2009). The contribution of praeteritio to arguers’ confrontational strategic manoeuvres. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 241-255). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Affiliations
Professor of English Language and Literature, Jiangsu University Deputy Dean Faculty of Foreign Languages, Jiangsu University
Five selected articles / book chapters In English
Wu Peng (2017), Strategic maneuvering by personal attack in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at Chinese diplomatic press conferences. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(3), 285-314.
Wu Peng (2019). “I have no comment”: Confrontational maneuvering by declaring a standpoint unallowed or indisputable in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation, 33(4), 489-519.
Wu Peng (2019). Confrontational maneuvering by dissociation in spokespersons’
argumentative replies at the press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation, 33(1), 1-22.
Wu Peng (2021). The uncompromising confrontational argumentative style of the spokespersons’ replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1). In press.