A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation

American Anti-Slavery Society 2005. Declaration of Sentiments. In: Reid R. F., Klumpp J. F. (eds) American Rhetorical Discourse, 3rd ed. Waveland Press, Long Gove, IL, pp. 310–314

Blassingame J. W. 1982. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, Vol. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven

Branham, R.: 1999, ‘Abolitionist Reconstructions of July Fourth’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 65–73, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

Brinton A. 1988a. Appeal to the Angry Emotions. Informal Logic 10:77–87

Brinton A. 1988b. Pathos and the “Appeal to Emotion”: An Aristotelian Analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly 5:207–219

Brinton A. 1994. A Plea for Argumentum ad misericordiam. Philosophia 23:25–44

Douglass F. 1999. What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? Extract from an Oration, at Rochester, July 5, 1852. In: Blassingame J. W., McKivigan J. R., Hinks P. P. (eds) The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Two: Autobiographical Writings, Vol. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 264–268

Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, pp. 9–24, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA

Eemeren F. H. van 1990. The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. Text 10(1/2):37–44.

Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ

Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Henkemans F. S. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Henkemans F. S., et al. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 1997. Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-Dialectical Reconstructions. In: Klumpp J. F. (ed.) Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques. National Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 51–56

Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 1999. Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1:479–497

Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2000. Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14:293–305

Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2001. Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis Within a Dialectical Framework. Argumentation and Advocacy 37:150–157

Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‘More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of tu quoque’, IL@25, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, retrieved 21 July 2004 <http://venus.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_vanEemerenHoutlosser.doc>

Fusfield W. D.: 1999, ‘“Scorching Irony, Not Convincing Argument, is Needed”: Frederick Douglass on Some Rhetorical Limitations of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 216–220, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

Gilbert M. A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

Gilbert M. A. 2001. Emotional Messages. Argumentation 15:239–249

Goodwin J. 2000. Comments on “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics”. Argumentation 14:287–292

Goodwin J. 2001. Cicero’s Authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34:38–60

Goodwin J. 2002. Designing Issues. In: van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 81–96

Goodwin, J.: 2003, ‘Manifestly Adequate Premises’, IL@25, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, retrieved 21 July 2004 <http://venus.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_Goodwin.doc>

Govier T. 2005. A Practical Study of Argument, 6th ed. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

Innocenti B. 1994. Towards a Theory of Vivid Description as Practiced in Cicero’s Verrine Orations. Rhetorica 12:355–381

Jacobs, S.: 1999, ‘Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R.␣Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 397–403, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

Jacobs S. 2000. Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286

Kauffeld, F. J.: 1995, ‘The Persuasive Force of Argumentation on Behalf of Proposals’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. 2, pp. 79–90, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

Kauffeld F. J. 1998. Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12:245–266

Manolescu B. I. 2004. Formal Propriety as Rhetorical Norm. Argumentation 18:113–125

Manolescu B. I. 2005. Norms of Presentational Force. Argumentation and Advocacy 41:139–151

O’Keefe D. J. 1982. The Concepts of Argument and Arguing. In: Cox J. R., Willard C. A. (eds) Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 3–23

Walton D. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park