How can metaphors communicate arguments?
-
Fabrizio Macagno
Fabrizio Macagno (Ph.D. in Linguistics, UCSC, Milan, 2003) works as an associate professor at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. His current research is focused on the persuasive use of emotive language and on the dialectical dimension of discourse implicitness. He is author of several papers on definition, informal fallacies, argumentation schemes, and dialogue theory published on major international peer-reviewed journals. His most important publications include the booksArgumentation Schemes (CUP 2008),Emotive language in argumentation (CUP 2014),Interpreting Straw-man argumentation (Springer 2017), andPragmatics and argumentation in statutory interpretation (CUP, forthcoming).
Abstract
Metaphors are considered as instruments crucial for persuasion. However, while many studies and works have focused on their emotive, communicative, and persuasive effects, the argumentative dimension that represents the core of their “persuasiveness” is almost neglected. This paper addresses the problem of explaining how metaphors can communicate arguments, and how it is possible to reconstruct and justify them. To this purpose, a distinction is drawn between the arguments that are communicated metaphorically and interpreted based on relevance considerations, and the ones that are triggered implicitly by the use of a metaphorical expression. In both cases, metaphorical arguments are reconstructed through different patterns of argument, called argumentation schemes (Walton, Reed and Macagno 2008). However, while the purpose of a metaphorical sequence of discourse (called metaphorical move) can guide and justify the reconstruction of the argument that can sufficiently support the intended conclusion in a persuasive move, a more complex analysis is needed for analyzing the additional inferences that a metaphorical move can trigger. These inferences are claimed to represent part of the connotation of the metaphorical expression and can be captured through its most frequent collocations, determinable using some tools of the corpus linguistics.
Funding source: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
About the author
Fabrizio Macagno (Ph.D. in Linguistics, UCSC, Milan, 2003) works as an associate professor at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa. His current research is focused on the persuasive use of emotive language and on the dialectical dimension of discourse implicitness. He is author of several papers on definition, informal fallacies, argumentation schemes, and dialogue theory published on major international peer-reviewed journals. His most important publications include the books Argumentation Schemes (CUP 2008), Emotive language in argumentation (CUP 2014), Interpreting Straw-man argumentation (Springer 2017), and Pragmatics and argumentation in statutory interpretation (CUP, forthcoming).
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (research grant no. PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 – research project: Evidence-based metaphors for diabetes care).
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1977. Deux mais en français?. Lingua 43(1). 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles, Belgium: Pierre Mardaga.Suche in Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991a. Rhetoric. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1991b. Poetics. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, vol. II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.4159/DLCL.aristotle-poetics.1995Suche in Google Scholar
Barchard, Kimberly A, Hensley Spencer, Emily D Anderson & Holly E Walker. 2013. Measuring the ability to perceive the emotional connotations of written language. Journal of personality assessment 95(4). 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.736906.Suche in Google Scholar
Bellack, Arno, Kliebard Herbert, Hyman Ronald & Jr.Frank Smith. 1966. The language of the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2014. Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ self-management abilities in chronic care. In Giovanni Riva, Paolo Ajmone Marsan & Claudio Grassi (eds.), Active ageing and healthy living: A human centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life, 193–203. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Black, Max. 1955. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, new series 55. 273–294.10.1093/aristotelian/55.1.273Suche in Google Scholar
Bowes, Andrea & Albert Katz. 2015. Metaphor creates intimacy and temporarily enhances theory of mind. Memory and Cognition 43(6). 953–963. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0508-4.Suche in Google Scholar
Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn & Gerard J. Steen. 2016. Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096.Suche in Google Scholar
Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse. London, UK: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn & Catherine Wearing. 2011. Metaphor, hyperbole and simile: A pragmatic approach. Language and Cognition 3(2). 283–312. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Metaphor, ad hoc concepts and word meaning - more questions than answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14(2002). 83–105.Suche in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: Ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110(3pt3). 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x. https://academic.oup.com/aristotelian/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Casarett, David, Amy Pickard, Jessica M. Fishman, Stewart C. Alexander, Robert M. Arnold, Kathryn I. Pollak & James A. Tulsky. 2010. Can metaphors and analogies improve communication with seriously ill patients? Journal of Palliative Medicine 13(3). 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2009.0221.Suche in Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York, NY: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230501706Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1987. Relevance to what? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10(4). 714–715. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00055394.Suche in Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 1992. Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts, 289–306. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1978. What metaphors mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1). 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1086/447971.Suche in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice. 2003. Metaphorical expressions and culture: An indirect link. Metaphor and Symbol 18(4). 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1804_3.Suche in Google Scholar
Dobrzyńska, Teresa. 1995. Translating metaphor: Problems of meaning. Journal of pragmatics 24(6). 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00022-K.Suche in Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris, France: Hermann.Suche in Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1979. Les lois de discours. Langue française 42. 21–33. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1979.6152.Suche in Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris, France: Minuit.Suche in Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1993. Les topoi dans la “Théorie de l’argumentation dans la langue.” In Christian Plantin (ed.), Lieux communs, topoi, stéréotypes, 233–248. Paris, France: Kimé.Suche in Google Scholar
Ervas, Francesca, Marcello Montibeller, Maria Grazia Rossi & Pietro Salis. 2016. Expertise and metaphors in health communication. Medicina & Storia 16(9–10). 91–108.Suche in Google Scholar
Ervas, Francesca, Elisabetta Gola & Maria Grazia Rossi. 2018. Argumentation as a bridge between metaphor and reasoning. In Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and language – linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, 153–170. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_7Suche in Google Scholar
Garza-Cuarón, Beatriz. 1991. Connotation and meaning. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110867916Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond & Lynne Cameron. 2008. The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research. Elsevier 9(1–2). 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond, Markus Tendahl & Lacey Okonski. 2011. Inferring pragmatic messages from metaphor. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 7(1). 3–28. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0002-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1984. Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science 8(3). 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0803_4.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1987. Mutual knowledge and the psychology of conversational inference. Journal of Pragmatics 11(5). 561–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90180-9.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 1992. When is metaphor? The idea of understanding in theories of metaphor. Poetics Today 13(4). 575–606. https://doi.org/10.2307/1773290.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language 21(3). 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam & Boaz Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97(1). 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.3.Suche in Google Scholar
Goatly, Andrew. 2011. The language of metaphors. London, UK: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara & Candace Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12(3). 175–204. https://doi.org/10.5555/12457.12458.Suche in Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1965. Aristotle’s logic of analogy. The Philosophical Quarterly 15(61). 328–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/2218258.Suche in Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert, Mark L Knapp & Lorel Scott. 1981. Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication 31(1). 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01201.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. Harlow, UK: Pearson.Suche in Google Scholar
Jeshion, Robin. 2016. Slur creation, bigotry formation: The power of expressivism. Phenomenology and Mind 11. 130–139. https://doi.org/10.13128/Phe_Mi-20113.Suche in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.Suche in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2003. Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894035Suche in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40(3). 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892655.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2019. Impoverished pragmatics? The semantics-pragmatics interface from an intercultural perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics 16(5). 489–515. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0026.Suche in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1977. La connotation. Lyon, France: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Suche in Google Scholar
Kinneavy, James. 2002. Kairos in classical and modern rhetorical theory. In Phillip Sipiora & James, Baumlin (eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory, and praxis, 58–76. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1989. Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2003. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408Suche in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor, language, and culture. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 26. 739–757. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-44502010000300017.Suche in Google Scholar
Kovecses, Zoltan. 2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Pres.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Nicholas Asher. 2008. Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Harry Bunt & Reinhard Muskens (eds.), Computing meaning, 87–124. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-5958-2_5Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul, Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2012. Action formation and ascription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 101–130. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.10.1002/9781118325001.ch6Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017a. Understanding misunderstandings. Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor-patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14(1). 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0003.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017b. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2). 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2020. Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication – Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context. Advance online publication.10.1075/jaic.18044.macSuche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2018. Practical reasoning arguments: A modular approach. Argumentation 32(4). 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9450-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi. 2019. Metaphors and problematic understanding in chronic care communication. Journal of Pragmatics 151. 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Maria Grazia Rossi. Forthcoming, 2020. The communicative functions of metaphors between explanation and persuasion. In Fabrizio Macagno & Alessandro Capone (eds.), Inquiries in philosophical pragmatics. Theoretical developments. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Benedetta Zavatta. 2014. Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation 28(4). 453–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale. 2017. Analogical arguments: Inferential structures and defeasibility conditions. Argumentation 31(2). 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9406-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2017. The logical and pragmatic structure of arguments from analogy. Logique et Analyse 60(240). 465–490. https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.240.0.3254093.Suche in Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. Assessing relevance. Lingua 210–211. 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.04.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Lidija Iordanskaja. 2009. Connotation (in linguistic semantics). In Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger & Karl Gutschmidt (eds.), Die slavischen sprachen (ein internationales handbuch zu ihrer struktur, ihrer geschichte und ihrer erforschung), 875–882. Berlin, Germany, and New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2015. Semantics: From meaning to text. Vol. 3. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Suche in Google Scholar
Merin, Arthur. 1994. Algebra of elementary social acts. In Savas Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory, 242–272. London, UK: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Moran, Richard. 2017. Artifice and persuasion: The work of metaphor in the rhetoric. In Richard Moran (ed.), The philosophical imagination: Selected essays, 49–60. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190633776.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2015. Metaphor interpretation and cultural linguistics. Language and Semiotic Studies 1(3). 35–51.10.1515/lass-2015-010303Suche in Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. 2004. Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In Robert Gass & John Seiter (eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining, 31–43. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Suche in Google Scholar
Ortony, Andrew. 1975. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory 25(1). 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1975.tb00666.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve & Alain Rihs. 2014. Metaphor as argument: Rhetorical and epistemic advantages of extended metaphors. Argumentation 28(2). 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9304-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Ottati, Victor & Randall Renstrom. 2010. Metaphor and persuasive communication: A multifunctional approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4(9). 783–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00292.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Pilkington, Adrian. 2000. Poetic effects: A relevance theory perspective. Amsterdam, Netherlands-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/pbns.75Suche in Google Scholar
Read, Stephen J, Ian L. Cesa, David K. Jones & Nancy L. Collins. 1990. When is the federal budget like a baby? Metaphor in political rhetoric. Metaphor and Symbol 5(3). 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0503_1.Suche in Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. On understanding poetic metaphor. Poetics. Elsevier 5(4). 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422x(76)90017-6.Suche in Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Rossi, Maria Grazia, Fabrizio Macagno & Sarah Bigi. Submitted. Dialogical functions of metaphors in medical communication.Suche in Google Scholar
Rossi, Maria Grazia. 2016. Metaphors for patient education. A pragmatic-argumentative approach applying to the case of diabetes care. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 10(2). 34–48.Suche in Google Scholar
Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Petr Sojka & Aleš Horák (eds.), Proceedings of Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, RASLAN, 6–9. Brno, Czech Republic: Masaryk University.Suche in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert. 1987. Cognitive foundations of calculated speech: Controlling understandings in conversation and persuasion. Albany, NY: Suny Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sanders, Robert. 2013. The duality of speaker meaning: What makes self-repair, insincerity, and sarcasm possible. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.020.Get.Suche in Google Scholar
Santibáñez, Cristián. 2010. Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation. Journal of Pragmatics. Elsevier 42(4). 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.019.Suche in Google Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining reality. Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena, Zsófia Demjén, Jane Demmen, Veronika Koller, Sheila Payne, Andrew Hardie & Rayson Paul. 2015. The online use of violence and journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study. BMJ supportive & palliative care 7(1). 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2014-000785.Suche in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena, Zsófia Demjén & Jane Demmen. 2016. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5). 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw028.Suche in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008a. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015Suche in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008b. Corpus linguistics and metaphor. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, vol. 280, 463–476. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316339732.029Suche in Google Scholar
Sinclair, Michael & Malcolm Coulthard. 1992. Towards an analysis of discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis, 1–34. London, UK: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Sopory, Pradeep & James Price Dillard. 2002. The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 28(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.3.382.Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In Gibbs Raymond (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–106. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511816802.007Suche in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2008. The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 23(4). 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753.Suche in Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Vol. 4. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1990a. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87. 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1990b. Practical reasoning. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2004. A new dialectical theory of explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7(1). 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1386979032000186863.Suche in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2007. The speech act of clarification in a dialogue model. Studies in Communication Sciences 7(2). 165–197.Suche in Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry George. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind and Language 21(3). 404–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
