標(biāo)題: Titlebook: Giving Reasons; A Linguistic-Pragmat Lilian Bermejo Luque Book 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Argumentation.Argumentation T [打印本頁] 作者: Harrison 時(shí)間: 2025-3-21 16:07
書目名稱Giving Reasons影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱Giving Reasons影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Giving Reasons網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度
書目名稱Giving Reasons網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Giving Reasons被引頻次
書目名稱Giving Reasons被引頻次學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Giving Reasons年度引用
書目名稱Giving Reasons年度引用學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Giving Reasons讀者反饋
書目名稱Giving Reasons讀者反饋學(xué)科排名
作者: 門閂 時(shí)間: 2025-3-21 22:52 作者: 鉤針織物 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 01:03 作者: 鉗子 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 06:52
The Logical Dimension of Argumentation,ons, it follows that, if argumentation is a complex of logical, dialectical and rhetorical properties, as contended in Chapter 3, then good argumentation will be argumentation satisfying logical, dialectical and rhetorical conditions..Yet, the other side of this coin is that argumentative normativit作者: Vsd168 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 12:20
The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation,have to fulfill two tasks: on the one hand, showing that any type of argumentation, whether dialogical or monological, involves such a dialectical dimension; but on the other hand, showing that dialectical normativity cannot be reduced to argumentative normativity ...In this chapter, I deal with the作者: 旅行路線 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 15:03
The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation,ncept of argumentative value..In order to show the specifics of this proposal, I outline current strategies for dealing with the rhetorical within Argumentation Theory. This task is partly carried out by following the criticisms that C. Kock has raised against the three main theories of argumentatio作者: 旅行路線 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 17:59
Argumentation Appraisal,heory. Consequently, I deal with the logical, dialectical and rhetorical conditions that determine whether an act of arguing succeeds at its constitutive goal of showing a target claim to be correct..As pointed out in Chapter 1, in our account, the analysis of argumentation is to be displayed on two作者: CT-angiography 時(shí)間: 2025-3-22 21:28
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54532-3cifics of linguistic communication. In addition, it is meant to show in which ways the activity of arguing is particularly akin to humans as rational and social beings: on the one hand, it is a tool to make our beliefs and claims rational, that is, a justificatory device; on the other, it is a means作者: 嗎啡 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 03:09 作者: 惰性氣體 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 09:24 作者: 易受騙 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 11:14
Rolf-Ulrich Sprenger,Michael Rauscherons, it follows that, if argumentation is a complex of logical, dialectical and rhetorical properties, as contended in Chapter 3, then good argumentation will be argumentation satisfying logical, dialectical and rhetorical conditions..Yet, the other side of this coin is that argumentative normativit作者: Conquest 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 15:16
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230001213have to fulfill two tasks: on the one hand, showing that any type of argumentation, whether dialogical or monological, involves such a dialectical dimension; but on the other hand, showing that dialectical normativity cannot be reduced to argumentative normativity ...In this chapter, I deal with the作者: 最低點(diǎn) 時(shí)間: 2025-3-23 21:10
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01352-3ncept of argumentative value..In order to show the specifics of this proposal, I outline current strategies for dealing with the rhetorical within Argumentation Theory. This task is partly carried out by following the criticisms that C. Kock has raised against the three main theories of argumentatio作者: Cryptic 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 00:49
Adriana Calvelli,Chiara Cannavaleheory. Consequently, I deal with the logical, dialectical and rhetorical conditions that determine whether an act of arguing succeeds at its constitutive goal of showing a target claim to be correct..As pointed out in Chapter 1, in our account, the analysis of argumentation is to be displayed on two作者: acetylcholine 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 03:01
978-94-007-3784-6Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011作者: 發(fā)怨言 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 06:39 作者: 護(hù)身符 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 10:50 作者: 揮舞 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 18:40 作者: 陰謀 時(shí)間: 2025-3-24 21:00 作者: 折磨 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 02:28
Book 2011s of argumentation in a model providing a unitary treatment of its justificatory and persuasive powers. This model takes as its basis Speech Acts Theory in order to characterize argumentation as a second-order speech act complex. The result is a systematic and comprehensive theory of the interpretat作者: MOAT 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 03:20 作者: 苦笑 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 07:47 作者: MERIT 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 13:04
Why Do We Need a New Theory of Argumentation?,avoid instrumentalism in proposing a normative model for argumentation is to characterize argumentation goodness in terms of justification. Then, in Section 2.5, I explain that adopting such non-instrumentalist view is, in addition, the only way to overcome the . that normative models for argumentat作者: Critical 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 17:35 作者: deriver 時(shí)間: 2025-3-25 20:50 作者: GLOSS 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 00:50
The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation,ical normative conditions of argumentation are constitutive respecting its justificatory dimension – or, in other words, that for a piece of communication to be considered argumentation, it has to fulfill certain dialectical conditions. In turn, such dialectical conditions happen to be regulative re作者: enmesh 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 05:27
The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation,h strategy for incorporating a rhetorical perspective within our normative models. According to it, every piece of argumentation has to be analyzed and, more importantly, appraised from a rhetorical perspective..The idea of including rhetorical conditions for determining the value of a piece of argu作者: 單調(diào)女 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 09:15 作者: 機(jī)制 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 15:12 作者: ADAGE 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 19:15
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54163-6avoid instrumentalism in proposing a normative model for argumentation is to characterize argumentation goodness in terms of justification. Then, in Section 2.5, I explain that adopting such non-instrumentalist view is, in addition, the only way to overcome the . that normative models for argumentat作者: LVAD360 時(shí)間: 2025-3-26 22:00 作者: 知識 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 01:32
Rolf-Ulrich Sprenger,Michael Rauscherulmin first presented in . (1958), both as a leading work on the nature of Logic and as an attempt at providing a tool for argumentation appraisal. Afterwards, I explain the differences between Toulmin’s approach and mine by considering the criticisms that his conception of Logic has received. One o作者: overrule 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 08:24
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230001213ical normative conditions of argumentation are constitutive respecting its justificatory dimension – or, in other words, that for a piece of communication to be considered argumentation, it has to fulfill certain dialectical conditions. In turn, such dialectical conditions happen to be regulative re作者: 方舟 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 10:34
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01352-3h strategy for incorporating a rhetorical perspective within our normative models. According to it, every piece of argumentation has to be analyzed and, more importantly, appraised from a rhetorical perspective..The idea of including rhetorical conditions for determining the value of a piece of argu作者: CREEK 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 16:30 作者: 蚊子 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 18:47 作者: Expostulate 時(shí)間: 2025-3-27 22:11 作者: laceration 時(shí)間: 2025-3-28 02:38
