Controversy and Confrontation
Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory
Editors
| University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam
The essays that are collected in Controversy and Confrontation provide a closer insight into the relationship between controversy and confrontation that deepens our understanding of the functioning of argumentative discourse in managing differences of opinion. Their authors stem from two backgrounds. First, the controversy scholars Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl discuss historical controversies in science, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective; Saim concentrates on a historical controversy; Fritz provides a historical perspective on controversies by analyzing communication principles. Second the argumentation scholars Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation; Aakhus and Vasilyeva examine argumentative discourse from the perspective of conversation analysis; Jackson analyzes argumentative confrontation in a recent debate between scientists and politicians. Last but not least, two contributors, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an attempt to bridge the study of historical controversy and the study of argumentation.
[Controversies, 6] 2008. xiii, 278 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Preface
|
vii–viii
|
|
List of contributors
|
ix–xiii
|
|
1–26
|
|
|
27–49
|
|
|
51–75
|
|
|
77–91
|
|
|
93–108
|
|
|
109–124
|
|
|
125–133
|
|
|
135–147
|
|
|
149–162
|
|
|
163–179
|
|
|
181–195
|
|
|
197–214
|
|
|
215–230
|
|
|
231–247
|
|
|
249–273
|
|
|
Index
|
275–278
|
“
Controversy and Confrontation is an ambitious cross-disciplinary work. [...] All in all, the result is an engaging piece of reading that reveals the impact that Van Eemeren and Grassen have had on argumentation theory generally. The inspiring contributions provide a good perspective for further research on argumentation theory as well as cognitive linguistics.”
Anna Kuzio, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
Cited by
Cited by 10 other publications
Bondi, Marina
2018.
In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31],
► pp. 137 ff. 
Chateauraynaud, Francis & David Chavalarias
2018. L’analyse des grands réseaux évolutifs et la sociologie pragmatique des controverses.
Sociologie et sociétés 49:2 ► pp. 137 ff.
Ferreira, Maria
2021. Compliance with EU Law and Argumentative Discourse: Representing the EU as a Problem-Solving Multilevel Governance System through Discursive Structures of Argumentation.
Argumentation
Gerken, Mikkel
2015. The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45:6 ► pp. 568 ff.
Immroth, Barbara & W. Bernard Lukenbill
2014. Marcus Borg's Emerging Paradigm for Christianity: The Interplay of GLBT Readers, Religious Text, and Social Environment.
Journal of Religious & Theological Information 13:3-4 ► pp. 88 ff.
Jakaza, Ernest & Marianna W. Visser
2016.
In Political Discourse in Emergent, Fragile, and Failed Democracies [Advances in Electronic Government, Digital Divide, and Regional Development, ],
► pp. 126 ff.
Jang, Myungha, Shiri Dori-Hacohen & James Allan
2017.
In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval,
► pp. 141 ff.
Janich, Nina & Nina Kalwa
2018.
In Handbuch Pragmatik,
► pp. 413 ff.
Kharmandar, Mohammad Ali
2016. Argumentation-based literary translation quality assessment.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:2 ► pp. 139 ff.
Spranzi, Marta
2012.
In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory [Argumentation Library, 22],
► pp. 163 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 april 2021. 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.
Subjects
Communication Studies
Philosophy
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN015000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Rhetoric