Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate About Advocating Cover

Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate About Advocating

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Volume 36 (2014): Issue 1 (March 2014)
By:   
Open Access
|Apr 2014
References

References

  1. Aron, William, Burke, William, & Freeman, Milton. (2002). Scientists versus whal- ing: Science, advocacy, and errors of judgment. BioScience, 52(12), 1137.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Barry, Dwight, & Oelschlaeger, Max. (1996). A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 905-911.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Blockstein, David E. (2002). How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience, 52(1), 91-96.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Brussard, Peter F. & Tull, John C. (2007). Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 21-24.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Craig, Robert T. (1996). Practical-theoretical argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 461-474.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. Craig, Robert T. (1999).Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Craig, Robert T. (2011). The uses of “argument” in practical metadiscourse. In Robert C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change (pp. 76-86). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248-272.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen. (2010). Framing discourse as argument in ap- pellate courtrooms: Three cases on same-sex marriage. In Dennis S. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social change (pp. 46-53). Washing- ton, DC: National Communication Association.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Doury, Marianne. (2008). “Ce n’est pas un argument!” Sur quelques aspects de th´eorisations spontan´ees de l’argumentation. Pratiques, 139/140, 111-128.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Grootendorst, Rob. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Jackson, Sally, & Jacobs, Scott. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Ehninger, Douglas & Brockriede, Wayne. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Foote, Lee, Krogman, Naomi & Spence, John. (2009). Should academics advocate on environmental issues? Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 579-589.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Gill, Bruce R. (2001). Professionalism, advocacy, and credibility: A futile cycle? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 21-32.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, Jean. (2007a). Argument has no function. Informal Logic, 27, 69-90.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, Jean. (2007b). What, in practice, is an argument? In Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson (Eds.), Dis- sensus and the search for common ground (pp. 1-44). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Goodwin, Jean. (2013). Norms of advocacy. In Dima Mohammed & Marcin Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation (pp. 1-18). Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 62, 397-388.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. Houtlosser, Peter. (1994). The speech act “advancing a standpoint”. In Frans H van Eeemeren & Rob Grotendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 165-171): SicSat.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Houtlosser, Peter. (1998). Points of view. Argumentation, 12(3), 387-405.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Houtlosser, Peter. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In Frans H. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 169-184). Amsterdam: SicSat.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, Sally. (1985). What can speech acts do for argumentation theory? In J. Robert Cox, Malcolm O. Sillars & Gregg B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice (pp. 127-138). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Jackson, Sally. (1992). Virtual standpoints and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260-269). Am- sterdam: SicSat.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Karr, James R. (2006). When government ignores science, scientists should speak up. BioScience, 56(4), 287-288.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Kauffeld, Fred J. (1995). The persuasive force of arguments on behalf of proposals. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 79-90). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Kauffeld, Fred J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative bur- dens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245-266.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Kauffeld, Fred J. (1999). Arguments on the dialectical tier as structured by propos- ing and advising. In Christopher W. Tindale, Hans V. Hansen & Elmar Sveda (Eds.), Argumentation at the century’s turn: Proceedings of the third OSSA Conference. St. Catharines, ON: OSSA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Kauffeld, Fred J. (2001). Argumentation, discourse, and the rationality underlying Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning. In Eniko T. Nemeth (Ed.), Cogni- tion in language use: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 149-163). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Kauffeld, Fred J. (2002). Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argu- mentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 97-118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Kauffeld, Fred J. (2009).What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obliga- tions. In Scott Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument (pp. 1-31). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Kauffeld, Fred J. (2012). A pragmatic paradox inherent in expert reports addressed to lay citizens. In Jean Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens: Pro- ceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012 (pp. 229-240). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Kauffeld, Fred J. & Fields, John. (2003). The presumption of veracity in testi- mony and gossip. In J. Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans V. Hansen, Ralph H. Johnson & ChristopherW. Tindale (Eds.), Informal Logic @ 25.Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Lach, Denise, List, Peter, Steel, Brent & Shindler, Bruce. (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. BioScience, 53(2), 170-178.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Lackey, Robert T. (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12-17.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Lovejoy, Thomas. (1989). The obligations of a biologist. Conservation Biology, 3(4), 329-330.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Meine, Curt & Meffe, Gary K. (1996). Conservation values, conservation science: A healthy tension. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 916-917.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Meyer, Judy L., Frumhoff, Peter C., Hamburg, Steven P. & de la Rosa, Carlos. (2010). Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 299-305.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  42. Mills, Thomas & Clark, Roger. (2001). Roles of research scientists in natural re- source decision-making. Forest Ecology and Management, 153, 189-198.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  43. Minnis, Donna & Stout McPeake, Rebecca. (2001). An analysis of advocacy within the wildlife profession. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 1-10.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  44. Moran, Richard. (2006). Getting told and being believed. In Jennifer Lackey & Ernest Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 272-306). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Morrison, Thomas A. & Ayres, Matthew P. (2010). Speaking out: Weighing ad- vocacy and objectivity as a junior scientist. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(1), 50-55.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  46. Myers, N. (1999). Environmental scientists: Advocates as well? Environmental Con- servation, 26(3), 163-165.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  47. Nelkin, Dorothy. (1977). Scientists and professional responsibility: The experience of American ecologists. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 75-95.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  48. Nelson, Michael & Vucetich, John. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scien- tists:What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090-1101.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  49. Nielsen, Larry. (2001). Science and advocacy are different-and we need to keep them that way. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 39-47.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  50. Noss, R. (2007). Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 18-20.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. Robert Cox & Charles Arthur Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. Paglieri, Fabio & Castelfranchi, Cristiano. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost- benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71-91.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  53. Philipsen, Gerry. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Pielke, Roger A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  55. Plantin, Christian. (1996). L’argumentation. Paris: Le Seuil.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Plantin, Christian. (2002). Argumentation studies and discourse analysis: The French situation and global perspectives. Discourse Studies, 4(3), 343-368.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  57. Schneider, Stephen H. (1988). The greenhouse effect and the US summer of 1988: Cause and effect or a media event? Climatic Change, 13(2), 113-115.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  58. Scott, J. Michael & Rachlow, Janet L. (2011). Refocusing the debate about advo- cacy. Conservation Biology, 25(1), 1-3.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  59. Scott, J.Michael, Rachlow, Janet L. & Lackey, Robert T. (2008). The science-policy interface: What is an appropriate role for professional societies? BioScience, 58(9), 865-869.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  60. Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  61. Stampe, Dennis. (1967). On the Acoustic Behavior of Rational Animals. Photocopy.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI.Steel, Brent, List, Peter, Lach, Denise & Shindler, Bruce. (2004). The role of scien- tists in the environmental policy process: A case study from the American west. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(1), 1-13.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  63. Tracy, C. Richard & Brussard, Peter F. (1996). The importance of science in con- servation biology. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 918-919.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  64. Walton, Douglas. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  65. Wiens, John A. (1997). Scientific responsibility and responsible ecology. Conserva- tion Ecology, 1(1), 16.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0003 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6059 (formerly 0860-150X) | Journal ISSN: 0860-150X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 79 - 98
Published on: Apr 12, 2014
Published by: University of Białystok
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
argumentation,
metadiscourse,
speech acts,
science-policy interface,
advocacy,
advice
Related subjects:
Philosophy,
Philosophy, other

© 2014 Jean Goodwin, published by University of Białystok
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 36 (2014): Issue 1 (March 2014)
Previous article
Next article