Di interesse generale (argomentazione, significato, comunicazione, ecc.)​

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, ThierryMicheli, 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.  

Su tema/rema, topic/focus e topic/comment​

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”.  

Sulle implicature

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.

Sulla vaghezza

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.

Sulle presupposizioni

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.

Sulla funzione persuasiva degli impliciti

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.

Sulla menzogna

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.

Sulla Critical Discourse Analysis

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.

Sul discorso manipolativo

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.

Sulla pubblicità e la propaganda politica

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.

Sulla processazione cerebrale degli impliciti e della comunicazione tendenziosa

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.