A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: References

By F. H. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst. 2003

903 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education (2013, background): “Apart from the persuasion criteria and conditions proposed by each school, the latter additionally presents an “ideal” stage-model of persuasive argumentation called critical discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004).”
Adolescents’ Disciplinary Use of Evidence, Argumentative Strategies, and Organizational Structure in Writing About Historical Controversies (2012, methodology): “This approach to analysis, based on pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, 2004; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002), identifies the stance taken by the writer, as well as alternative standpoints identified by the writer, along with coordinated and…”
Do Goals Affect the Structure of Students' Argumentative Writing Strategies? (2009, methodology): “Our procedures for analyzing the argumentative structures were derived from the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992, 2004; van Eemeren et al., 2002).”
Because Hitler did it! Quantitative tests of Bayesian argumentation using ad hominem (2012, background): “The ad hominem has classically been viewed as an argument fallacy from both a logical (eg, Copi & Cohen, 1994 ) and pragma-dialectic (eg, Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ) perspective.”