Sono online i nuovi video tutorial
Clicca qui per la versione breve
Clicca qui per la versione completa
Click here for complete video tutorial – English subtitles
Menu
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford, Blackwell.
Copi, I.– Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to logic (Ninth Edition). New York, Macmillan.
Cuccio, Valentina – Ervas, Francesca – Labinaz, Paolo (2011). Introduzione. Esercizi Filosofici 6, 2011: 1-15.
Saussure, Louis de (2011). Discourse analysis, cognition and evidentials. Discourse Studies I, 65: 32-39.
Fauconnier, G. – Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, Basic Books.
Freeman, James B. (2011). Argument structure: representation and theory. New York, Dordrecht.
Herman, Thierry – Micheli, Raphaël (2015). Théorie de l’argumentation et théorie du texte: quelques enjeux d’une approche textuelle de l’argumentation. In Adam, J.-M. et al. Problèmes du texte. Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté: 153-184.
Kienpointner, Manfred (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, Frommann-Holzboog.
Perelman, Chaïm – Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Paris, Presses universitaires de France.
Pinker, Steven – Nowak, Martin A. – Lee, James J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. PNAS 105, 3: 833-838.
Reisigl, Martin (2014). Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach: a methodological framework. In Hart, Christopher – Cap, Piotr (eds.). Contemporary critical discourse studies. London, Bloomsbury: 67-96.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca (1992). Analysing complex argumentation: the reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam, SicSat.
Toulmin, Stephen E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, Frans H. – Grootendorst Rob (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectal perspective. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1, 1: 91-112.
Van Leeuwen, Theo (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York, Oxford University Press.
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo – Masia, Viviana (2014). Processing constraints on the emergence of Topic-Focus structure in human language. Atti del Convegno Internazionale “Bodies, Tools & Cognition”.
Abbott, Barbara (2015). An Information Packaging Approach to Presuppositions and Conventional Implicatures. Topoi DOI 10.1007/s11245-014-9285-0.
Bill, Cory – Romoli, Jacopo – Schwarz, Florian – Crain, Stephen (2014). Scalar Implicatures Versus Presuppositions: The View from Acquisition. Topoi DOI 10.1007/s11245-014-9276-1.
Bavelas, J. B. – Black, A. – Chovil, N. – Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, Sage.
Spector, Benjamin (2015). Multivalent Semantics for Vagueness and Presupposition. Topoi DOI 10.1007/s11245-014-9292-1.
Abbott, Barbara (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1419-1437.
Chemla, Emmanuel – Bott, Lewis A. (2013). Processing presuppositions: dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment. Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (3) , pp. 241-260. 10.1080/01690965.2011.615221.
Saussure, Louis de (2012). Cognitive pragmatic ways into discourse analysis: the case of discursive presuppositions. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 8, 1: 37-59.
Saussure, Louis de (2014). Présuppositions discursives, assertion d’arrière-plan et persuasion. In Herman, T. – Oswald, S. (eds.), Rhétorique et cognition. Bern, Peter Lang.
Hertrich, Ingo – Kirsten, Mareike – Tiemann, Sonja – Beck, Sigrid – Wühle, Anja – Ackermann, Hermann – Rolke, Bettina (2015). Context-dependent impact of presuppositions on early magnetic brain responses during speech perception. Brain and Language, 149, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.06.005
Simons, Mandy (2001). On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions. in Hastings, R. – Jackson, B. and Zvolensky, Z. (eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, Ithaca, CLC Publications.
Maziad, Mohyi E. (2019). Nested presuppositions. A manipulative type of informative presupposition. Studies in Communication Sciences, 19(1), 25-44.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1986). L’implicite. Paris, Armand Colin éditeur.
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo – Masia, Viviana (2014). Implicitness Impact: Measuring texts. Journal of Pragmatics 61: 161-184.
DePaulo, B. M. – Kashy, D.A. – Kirkendol, S.E. – Wyer, M.M. – Epstein, J.A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 979-995.
Dessalles, J.-L. (2011). Reasoning as a lie detection device (Commentary on Mercier & Sperber: ‘Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory’). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2): 76-77.
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York, Norton.
Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In Wodak, R. – Chilton, P (eds). A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 19-53.
Galasinski, Dariusz (2000). The language of deception. A discourse analytical study. London, Sage.
Van Dijk, Teun (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249-283.
Allot, N. (2005). The role of misused concepts in manufacturing consent: a cognitive account. In L. de Saussure & P. Schulz (eds). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins: pp. 147-168.
Chilton, P. (2005). Manipulation, memes and metaphors: the case of Mein Kampf. In Saussure, L. de – Schulz, P. (eds.). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, language, mind. Amsterdam, Benjamins: pp. 15-43.
Correia, Vasco (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency 3(1): 107-126.
Correia, Vasco (2014). Biased argumentation and critical thinking. In Herman, T. – Oswald, S. (eds). Rhetoric and cognition. Theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies. Bern, Peter Lang.
Saussure, L. de – Schulz, P. (eds.) (2005). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Fowler, R. – Hodge, B. – Kress, G. – Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London, Routledge.
Greco, Sara (2003). When presupposing becomes dangerous. How the procedure of presuppositional accommodation can be exploited in manipulative discourses. Studies in Communication Sciences 3, 2: 217-234.
Maillat, Didier – Oswald, Steve (2009). Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions. International Review of Pragmatics 1: pp. 348–370.
Oswald, S. – Maillat, D. – Saussure, L. de (forth.). Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication. In Saussure, L. de & Rocci, A. (eds). Verbal communication (Handbooks of communicative science 3). Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society: pp. 359-383.
Amossy, Ruth – Herschberg Pierrot, Anne (2011). Stéréotypes et clichés: langue, discours, société. Paris, Armand Colin éditeur.
Andone, Corina (2016). Argumentative patterns in the political domain: the case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation 30, 1. (Special issue on argumentative patterns).
Chilton, P. (1994). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Doury, Marianne (2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation 26, 1: 99-114.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. New York, Routledge.
Garssen, Bart (2013). Strategic maneuvering in European parliamentary debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2, 1: 33-46.
Gauthier, G (2005). Argumentation et opinion dans la prise de position éditoriale. In Burger, M – Martel Guylane (eds.). Argumentation et communication dans les médias. Québec, Editions Nota bene : 131, 155.
Geis, Michael L. (1982). The language of television advertising. New York, Academic Press.
Goodnight, G. Thomas (2008). Strategic maneuvering in direct to consumer drug advertising: a study in argumentation theory and new institutional theory. Argumentation 22: 359-371.
Hansson, Sten (2015). Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: a framework for analysis. Discourse & Society 26, 3: 197-322.
Hansson, Sten (2015). Calculated overcommunication: strategic uses of prolixity, irrelevance, and repetition in administrative language. Journal of Pragmatics 84: 172-188.
Hart, Christopher (2005). Analysing political discourse: Toward a cognitive approach. Critical Discourse Studies 2, 2: 189-194.
Herman, Thierry (2014). L’argument d’autorité: de sa structure à ses effets. In Herman, Thierry – Oswald, Steve. Rhétorique et cognition : perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives. Berne, Peter Lang : 153-184.
Hood, Cristopher (2011). The blame game: spin, bureaucracy and self-preservation in government. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Jacobs, Scott (1995). Implicatures and deception in the arguments of commercial advertising. In van Eemeren, F. H. – Grootendorst, R. – Blair, J. A. – Willard, C. A. (eds.). Special fields and cases: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation. Vol. IV. Amsterdam, Sic Sat: 579-592.
Koren, Roselyne (1996). Les enjeux éthiques de l’écriture de presse e la mise en mots du terrorisme. Paris, L’Harmattan.
Lakoff, George (2008). The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st century American politics with an 18th century brain. New York, Penguin group.
Poppel, Lotte Van – Rubinelli, Sara (2011). ‘Try the smarter way’. On the claimed efficacy of advertised medicines. In Feteris, E. T. – Garssen, B. – Snoek Hankemans F. (eds.) Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectis. Amsterdam, John Benjamins: 153-164.
Reisigl, Martin – Wodak, Ruth (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London, Routledge.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3, 1: 87-118.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17, 3: 359-383.
Wegrzyn, Anna (2008). Editorial – genre marqué axiologiquement. Romania Cracoviensia 08: 109-123.
Wodak, Ruth (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, Ruth (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London, Sage.
Maziad, Mohyi E. (2019). Nested Presuppositions. A manipulative type of informative presupposition. Studies in Communication Sciences, 19(1), 25-44.
Bangerter, A. – Heath, C. (2004). The Mozart effect: Tracking the evolution of a scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology 43: pp. 605–623.
Bond, C. F. – DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Review of Personality and Social Psychology 10: pp. 214-234.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society 9(2): 319-342.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1975). Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Cognitive Psychology 7: 550-572.
Viola, Eleonora (2011). Tra contesto e implicitezza. Per una pragmatica filosofica. Tesi di dottorato, Università Ca’ Foscari.
Ferreira F, Bailey KGD, Ferraro V (2002) Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11: 11–15.
Sanford AJ (2002) Context, Attention and Depth of Processing During Interpretation. Mind Lang. 17: 188–206. Sanford AJ, Sturt P (2002) Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6: 382–386.
Sanford AJ, Sturt P (2002) Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6: 382–386.
Sanford AJ, Graesser AC (2006) Shallow Processing and Underspecification. Discourse Processes 42: 99–108.
Ferreira F, Patson ND (2007) The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Lang. Linguistics Compass 1: 71–83.
Maziad, Mohyi E. (2019). Nested Presuppositions. A manipulative type of informative presupposition. Studies in Communication Sciences, 19(1), 25-44.
Clicca qui per la versione breve
Clicca qui per la versione completa
Click here for complete video tutorial – English subtitles
OPPP 2022 © All Rights Reserved.