Page 106 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 106
What Do We Know about the World?
ers. By extending this kind of analysis to other practical examples of the
argumentative use of parody we will hopefully be able to gain a deeper
insight into its positive and negative argumentative effects and to take a
step forward towards elaborating more general criteria for its appropri-
ateness in different contexts of rational communication.
References
Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Ra-
tional Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, translated by R. Ad-
ler and N. MacCormick. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle (1961a). Posterior Analytics, translated by H. Tredennick,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1961b). Topica, translated by E. S. Forster, London: William
Heinemann.
Badarevski, B. (2004). Analytic/Continental and Derridaean. Identi-
ties – Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, 3/2, 247–267.
Barth, E. M., and E. C. W. Krabbe (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue:
A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Berlin/New
York: Walter de Gruyter.
Boghossian, P., and T. Nagel (1996). Letter to Lingua Franca. http://
www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/mstsokal.html (29. September
2012).
Carlson, L. D. (2008). Should This Book Have Been Written? Review
of Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. http://www.
amazon.com/review/R1K5D396EAKNNE (30. September 2012).
Dimiškovska, A. (2009). Субверзијата во аргументативниот дискурс
и стратегии за справување со неа (Subversion in Argumentative
Discourse and Strategies for Dealing with It), Философија 26: 93–
111.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech Acts in Argu-
mentative Discussions, Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and P. Houtlosser (2009). Strategic Maneuvering:
Examining Argumentation in Context. Eemeren, F. H. van (ed.).
Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic
Maneuvering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-
ing Company, 1–24.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst (1995). The Pragma-Dialec-
tical Approach to Fallacies. Hansen, H. V., and R. C. Pinto. Fal-
lacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. http://www.ditext.
com/eemeren/pd.html (27. September 2012).
ers. By extending this kind of analysis to other practical examples of the
argumentative use of parody we will hopefully be able to gain a deeper
insight into its positive and negative argumentative effects and to take a
step forward towards elaborating more general criteria for its appropri-
ateness in different contexts of rational communication.
References
Alexy, R. (1989). A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Ra-
tional Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, translated by R. Ad-
ler and N. MacCormick. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Aristotle (1961a). Posterior Analytics, translated by H. Tredennick,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1961b). Topica, translated by E. S. Forster, London: William
Heinemann.
Badarevski, B. (2004). Analytic/Continental and Derridaean. Identi-
ties – Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture, 3/2, 247–267.
Barth, E. M., and E. C. W. Krabbe (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue:
A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Berlin/New
York: Walter de Gruyter.
Boghossian, P., and T. Nagel (1996). Letter to Lingua Franca. http://
www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/mstsokal.html (29. September
2012).
Carlson, L. D. (2008). Should This Book Have Been Written? Review
of Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. http://www.
amazon.com/review/R1K5D396EAKNNE (30. September 2012).
Dimiškovska, A. (2009). Субверзијата во аргументативниот дискурс
и стратегии за справување со неа (Subversion in Argumentative
Discourse and Strategies for Dealing with It), Философија 26: 93–
111.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech Acts in Argu-
mentative Discussions, Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and P. Houtlosser (2009). Strategic Maneuvering:
Examining Argumentation in Context. Eemeren, F. H. van (ed.).
Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic
Maneuvering. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publish-
ing Company, 1–24.
Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst (1995). The Pragma-Dialec-
tical Approach to Fallacies. Hansen, H. V., and R. C. Pinto. Fal-
lacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. http://www.ditext.
com/eemeren/pd.html (27. September 2012).
