UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Het verband ontgaat me. Begrijpelijkheidsproblemen met verzwegen argumenten

van Hoek-Gerritsen, S.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):van Hoek - Gerritsen, S. (1999). Het verband ontgaat me. Begrijpelijkheidsproblemen met verzwegenargumenten Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 18 May 2018

Bibliografie

Abelson, R., 1961, In defense of formal logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,

21, 333-346.

Barnes, J., 1981, Proof and the syllogism. In: E. Berti (ed.). Aristotle on science: the

Posterior Analytics. Padova: Antenore, 17-59.

Barry, V., 1976, Practical logic. New York: Holt , Rinehart & Winston.

Baum, R., 1975, Logic. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bellert, I., 1973, O n various solutions of the problem of presuppositions. In: J.S. Petöfi

en H . Rieser (eds), Studies in text grammar. Dordrecht: Riedel, 79-95.

Benthem, J. van, 1995, Logic and argumentation. In: E H . van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst,

J.A. Blair en C A . Willard (eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third

ISSA conference on argumentation. Volume I. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 18-31.

Berg, J., 1992, Validity and rationality. In: E H . van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A.

Blair, C.A. Willard (eds.) Argumentation illuminated. Amsterdam: Sicsat, 104-112.

Berkenbosch, R., 1991, Het schrijven van beleidsteksten. Handleiding voor het opstellen van

korte notities over beleidskwesties. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Bitzer, L., 1959, Aristotle's enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45, 99-408.

Blair, J.A., 1992, Premissary relevance. Argumentation, 6, 2, 203-218.

Blair, J.A. en Johnson, R.H., 1980, Informal logic. The first international symposium.

Inverness (CA): Edgepress, ix-xvi.

Bolzano, B., 1837, Theory of science [R. George (ed.), 1972]

Braet, A.C., 1992, Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle's rhetoric: a re-examination.

Argumentation, 6, 3, 307-320.

Braet, A.C., 1997, Het enthymeem in Aristoteles' Rhetorica. Van Argumentatietheorie

naar logica. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 19, 2, 97-114.

Burke, M., 1985, Unstated premises. Informal Logic, 7, 2 /3 , 107-118.

Burnyeat, M.F., 1994, Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In: D.F. Furley

and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 3-55.

Burnyeat, M.F., 1996, Enthymeme: Aristotle on the rationality of rhetoric. In: A.

Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Berkely: University of California

Press, 88-115.

Bybee, M.D., 1991, Abduction and rhetorical theory. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24, 4, 281-

300.

Castaneda, H.N. , 1960, O n a proposed revolution in logic. Philosophy of Science, 27, 279-

292.

Coenen, H.G., 1992, La classification des exemples d'après Aristote. Argumentation, 6, 3,

321-336.

Cooley, J.C., 1959, O n mr. Toulmin's revolution in logic. The Journal of Philosophy, 56,

[364] 'Het verband ontgaat me'

7, 279-319.

Cope, E.M., 1867, An introduction to Aristotle's rhetoric. London: MacMillan and Co.

Copi, I.M. en Cohen, C , 1986, Introduction to logic. New York: MacMillan [8e ed.; le

ed., 1953, zonder Cohen].

Cough, J. en Tindale, C , 1985, 'Hidden' or 'missing' premises'. Informal Logic, 7, 2/3,

99-105.

Cowan, J.L., 1964, The uses of argument - an apology for logic. Mind, 73, 27-45.

Crable, R.E., 1976, Argumentation as communication. Reasoning with receivers. Columbus

(OH): Merrill.

Crossley, D.J. en Wilson, P.A., 1979, How to argue. An introduction to logical thinking.

New York: Random House.

Dascal, M., 1977, Conversational relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 309-328.

Donnellan, K., 1966, Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75,

281-304

Donnellan, K., 1968, Putting Humpty Dumpty together again. The Philosophical Review,

77, 203-215.

Drop, W. en Vries, J.H.L. de, 1981, Taalbeheersing. Handboek voor taaihantering. Gronin­

gen: Wolters-Noordhoff [ongewijzigde herdruk 1977].

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1978, Argumentatietheorie. Utrecht: Het

Spectrum.

Eemeren, E H . van en Grootendorst, R., 1981a, Verzwegen argumenten. Tijdschrift voor

Taalbeheersing, 3, 2, 130-156.

Eemeren, E H . van en Grootendorst, R., 1981b, Verzwegen argumenten voor Utrechters

verklaard. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 3, 3, 267-275.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1982a, Unexpressed (unexpected) premisses: part

I. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 97-106.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1982b, Unexpressed premisses: part II. Journal

of the American Forensic Association, 19, 215-225.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1984, Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A

theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of

opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1987a, Handbook of argumentation theory.

Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1987b, For reason's sake: maximal argumentative

analysis of discourse. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A.

Willard (eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference

on argumentation 1986. Foris: Dordrecht, 201-216.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1988, Rationale for a pragma-dialectic perspecti­

ve. Argumentation, 2, 2, 271-291.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1989a, Het schrijven van betogen. Naar een

presentatiestrategie op basis van pragma-dialectische analyse. In: D. Jansen en G.

Verhoeven (red.), Taalbeheersing in Nederland. Een bundel artikelen aangeboden aan

prof dr. W. Drop ter gelegenheid van zijn afscheid als hoogleraar in de Nederlandse

Taalbeheersing aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 87-

Bibliografie [365]

101.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1989b, Speech act conditions as tools for

reconstructing argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 3, 3, 367-383.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1990, Relevantie in argumentatieve teksten.

Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 12, 2, 180-190.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1992a, Argumentation, communication, and

fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1992b, Relevance reviewed. The case of

argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6, 141-159.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Grootendorst, R., 1997, Studies over argumentatie. Amsterdam:

Boom.

Eemeren, F.H. van en Kruiger, T., 1987, Identifying argumentation schemes. In: F.H. van

Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives

and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986. Foris: Dordrecht,

70-81.

Eemeren, E H . van, Grootendorst, R. en Kruiger, T., 1983, Argumentatieleer 1. Het

analyseren van een betoog. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. en Kruiger, T., 1986, Argumentatieleer 2. Drogrede­

nen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. en Snoeck Henkemans, F., 1995, Argumentatie.

Inleiding in het analyseren, beoordelen en presenteren van betogen. Groningen: Wolters-

Noordhoff.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. en Snoeck Henkemans, F , 1996, Fundamentals of

argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary

developments. Mahwah (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. en Straaten, P. van, 1996, Leren argumenteren met

Vader en Zoon. Amsterdam: Contact.

Eemeren, F.H. van e.a., 1991, Argumenteren voor juristen. Het analyseren en schrijven

van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. Groningen: Wolters- Noordhoff [2e, herziene

druk].

Ehninger, D. en Brockriede, W , 1963, Decison by debate. New York: Harper & Row.

Ennis, R.H., 1982, Identifying implicit assumptions. Synthese, 51, 61-86.

Farrell, T.B., 1976, Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 62, 1-14.

Flower, L. en Hayes, J.R., 1986, Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revison. College

Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.

Fohr, S.D., 1980a, The deductive-inductive distinction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 2, 2, 5-8.

Fohr, S.D., 1980b, Deductive-inductive: reply to criticisms. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3,

1, 5-10. Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A. en Trapp, R., 1991, Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect

Heights (IL): Waveland Press.

Franck, D., 1973, Zur Problematik der Präsuppositionsdiskussion. In: J.S. Petöfi en D.

Franck (eds), Präsuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik/Presuppositions in

philosophy and linguistics. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag, 11-42.

[366] 'Het verband ontgaat me'

Freeley, A.J., 1976, Argumentation and debate. Rational decision making. Belmont (CA):

Wadsworth.

Freeman, J.B., 1982, Logical form, probability interpretations and the inductive/deductive

distinction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 5, 1, 2-10

Freeman, J.B., 1992, Relevance, warrants, backing, inductive support. Argumentation, 6,

2, 219-236.

Garssen, B.J., 1997, Argumentatieschema's in pragmadialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch

en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT, proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.

George, R., 1972, Enthymematic consequence. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9, 113-

116.

George, R., 1983, Bolzano's consequence, relevance, and enthymemes. Journal of

Philosophical Logic, 12, 299-318.

Gerritsen, S., 1995, Defense of deductivism in the pragma-dialectical approach to

unexpressed premisses. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A.

Willard (eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argu­

mentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 130-137.

Gerritsen, S., 1989, Schrijfgids voor Economen. Bussum: Coutmho.

Goodnight, G.T., 1982, The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument. A

speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic

Association, 28, 35-40.

Goodnight, G.T., 1993, Legitimation inferences. An additional component for the

Toulmin model. Informal Logic, 24, 41-52.

Govier, T., 1978, Alternative to inductive-deductive paradigm. Informal Logic Newsletter,

1, 2, 4.

Govier, T., 1980, Critical review of Carl Wellman's Challenge and Response. Informal

Logic Newsletter, 2, 2, 10-15.

Govier, T., 1987, Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris. PDA

5.

Govier, T., 1992, A practical study of argument. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth [Ie druk 1985].

Grice, H.P., 1975, Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole en J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and

semantics 3: speech acts. London: Academic Press, 41-58.

Groarke, L., 1992, In defense of deductivism. Replying to Govier. In: E H . van Eemeren,

R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation illuminated. Amster­

dam: ISSA, 113-121.

Groarke, L., 1995, What pragma-dialectics can learn from deductivism, and what

deductivism can learn from pragma-dialectics. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst,

J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA

conference on argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 138-145.

Haack, S., 1978, Philosophy of logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haft-van Rees, A., 1985, Relevantie van uitingen in argumentatieve teksten. In: W.K.B.

Koning (red.), Taalbeheersing in theorie en praktijk. Dordrecht: Foris, 46-54.

Hamblin, C L , 1970, Fallacies. London: Methuen.

Hample, D., 1977, The Toulmin model and the syllogism. Journal of the Amercian Forensic

Association, 14, 1-18.

Bibliografie [367]

Hitchcock, D-, 1980, Deductive and inductive: types of validity, not types of argument.

Informal Logic Newsletter, 2, 3, 9-10.

Hitchcock, D., 1981, Deduction, induction and conduction. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3,

2, 7-15.

Hitchcock, D., 1983, Critical thinking. A guide to evaluating information. Toronto:

Methuen.

Hitchcock, D , 1985, Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic, 7, 2 /3 , 83-97.

Hitchcock, D , 1987, Enthymematic arguments. In: E H . van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst,

J.A. Blair en Ch. Willard (eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings

of the conference on argumentation 1986. Dordrecht: Foris; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,

289-298. PDA 3.

Hoaglund, J., 1984, Critical thinking. An introduction to informal logic. Newport News

(VI): Vale Press.

Hoogstraten, J., 1979, De machteloze onderzoeker. Voetangels en klemmen van sociaal­

wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Boom: Meppel

Houtlosser, R, 1995, Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief

op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten. Amsterdam: IFOTT, proefschrift

Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Jackson, S. en Jacobs, S., 1980, Structure of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for

the enthymeme. Quarterly fournal of Speech, 66, 251-265.

Johnson, E, 1980, Deductively-inductively. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 1, 4-5.

Johnson, R.H., 1981a, Charity begins at home. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 3, 4-9

Johnson, R.H., 1981b, Toulmin's bold experiment. Informal Logic Newsletter, 3, 3, 16-27.

Johnson, R.H. en Blair, J.A., 1977, Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Jong, W.R. de, 1988, Formele logika. Een inleiding. Muiderberg: Coutinho.

Kahane, H., 1969, Logic and philosophy. A modern introduction. Belmont (CA): Wads-

worth.

Karttunen, L., 1974, Presupposition and linguistic context. In: A. Rogers, B. Wall en J.P.

Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions, and

implicatures. Arlington (VI): Center for Applied Linguistics, 149-160.

Keenan, E.L., 1973, Presupposition in natural logic. The Monist, 57, 3, 344-370.

Keene, M.L., 1979, Teaching Toulmin logic. Teaching English in the two-year college, 5,

193-198.

Kennedy, G., 1963, The art of persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kienpointner, M., 1987, Towards a typology of argumentative schemes. In: E H . van

Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair en C.A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation. Across

the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986. Dordrecht:

Foris; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 275-287. PDA 3.

Kienpointner, M., 1992, How to classify arguments. In: E H . van Eemeren, R. Grooten­

dorst, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation illuminated. Amsterdam: Sic Sat,

178-188.

Kneupper, C.W., 1978, O n argument and diagrams. Journal of the American Forensic

Association, 14, 181-186.

Koetsenruijter, W en Slot, P., 1990, Het schrijven van betogen. Handleiding voor het

[368] 'Het verband ontgaat me'

opstellen van argumentatieve teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhofï.

Leeman, A.D. en Braet, A.C., 1987, Klassieke retorica: haar inhoud, functie en betekenis.

Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Manicas, P.T., 1966, O n Toulmin's contribution to logic and argumentation. Journal of

the American Forensic Association, 3, 87-112.

Nash, W., 1989, Rhetoric: the wit of persuasion. Oxford: Blackwell.

Nolt , J.E., 1984, Informal logic. Possible worlds and imaginations. New York: McGraw-

Hill. Pater, W. de en Vergauwen, R., 1992, Logica: formeel en informeel. Leuven: Universitaire

Pers; Assen: Van Gorcum.

Peirce, C.S., 1955, What is a leading principle. In: J. Buchler (ed.), Philosophical writings

of Peirce. New York: Dover, 129-134.

Perelman, C. en Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., 1958, La nouvelle rhétorique; traité de l'argumentati­

on. Bruxelles: l'Université de Bruxelles.

Plantin, C , 1990, Essais sur l'argumentation. Introduction à l'étude linguistique de la parole

argumentative. Paris: Editions Kimé.

Plèbe, A., 1992, La rhétorique Anstotehenne comme "logique orale". Argumentation, 6,

3, 349-354.

Purtill, R.L., 1972, Logical thinking. New York: Harper & Row.

Raymond, J.C., 1984, Enthymemes, examples, and rhetorical method. In: R.J. Conners,

L.S. Ede en A.A. Lunsford (eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 45-61.

Rescher, N . , 1964, Introduction to logic. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Rijk, L.M. de, 1967, Logica modernorum. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Ritter, J., 1972, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophic Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co.

Ryan, E.E., 1984, Aristotle's theory of rhetorical argumentation. Montréal: Bellarmin.

Ryan, E.E., 1992, Aristotle and the tradition of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation,

6, 3, 291-296.

Ryle, G., 1954, Dilemma's. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schellens, P.J., 1979, Vijf bezwaren tegen het Toulminmodel. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheer­

sing, 1, 226-246.

Schellens, P.J., 1985, Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Schellens, P.J., 1987, Types of argument and the critical reader. In: RH. van Eemeren, R.

Grootendorst, J.A. Blair en C A . Willard (eds.), Argumentation. Analyses and practices.

Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986. Dordrecht: Foris; Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter, 34-41. PDA 3.

Schellens, P.J. en Verhoeven, G., 1979, Naar een procedure voor de analyse en evalautie

van betogende teksten. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 1, 1-24.

Schellens, P.J. en Verhoeven, G., 1988, Argument en tegenargument. Een inleiding in de

analyse en beoordeling van betogende teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhofï.

Schmidt, S.J., 1977, Argumentationstheoretische Aspekte einer rationalen Literaturwissen­

schaft. In: M. Schecker (ed.), Theorie der Argumentation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 171-

200.

Bibliografie [369]

Schwartz, T., 1980, The art of logical reasoning. New York: Random House.

Scriven, M., 1976, Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Searle, J.R., 1979, Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Snoeck Henkemans, A.R, 1989, Schrijven. Handleiding voor het opstellen van zakelijke

teksten. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Solmsen, E, 1929, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik. Berlin:

Weidemann.

Sperber, D. en Wilson, D., 1986, Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford:

Black well.

Sprute, J., 1982, Die Enthymemtheorie der aristotelischen Rhetorik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht.

Sprute, J. en Wörner, M.H., 1982, Enthymem - ein Rückgriff auf Aristoteles in systema­

tischer Absicht. In: G. Ballweg en Th.M. Siebert (eds.), Rhetorische Rechtstheorie, zum

75 Geburtstag von Theodor Viehweg. Freiburg, 73-98.

Stalnaker, R.C., 1974, Pragmatic presuppositions. In: A. Rogers, B. Wall en J.P. Murphy

(eds), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions, and impli-

catures. Arlington (VI): Center for Applied Linguistics, 135-147.

Stalnaker, R.C., 1975, Presuppositions. In: D. Hockney, W. Harper en B. Freed (eds),

Contemporary research in philosophical logic and linguistic semantics. Proceedings of a

conference held at the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Dordrecht:

Reidel, 31-42.

Stalnaker, R.C., 1978, Assertion. In: P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 9.

Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 315-332.

Steehouder, M.F., 1976, De warrant in het model van Toulmin. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 69,

396-412.

Stove, D., 1970, Deductivism. Australasian Journal of Philiosophy, 48, 1, 76-98.

Stratman, J.E, 1982, Teaching written English. The significance of Toulmin's layout for

sentence-combining. College English, 44, 718-734.

Strawson, RE, 1950, O n referring. Mind, 59, 320-344.

Strawson, P.E, 1952, Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.

Stygall, G., 1987, Toulmin and the ethics of argument fields: teaching writing and

argument. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6, 93-107.

Thomas, S., 1986, Practical reasoning in natural language. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.):

Prentice-Hall [3e ed.; le ed., 1973].

Toulmin, S.E., 1992, Logic, rhetoric, and reason: redressing the balance. In: E H . van

Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair en C A . Willard (eds.), Argumentation

illuminated. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 3-11.

Toulmin, S.E., 1993, The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

[ongewijzigde herdruk 1958].

Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R. en Janik, A., 1979, An introduction to reasoning. New York:

MacMillan.

Trent, J.D., 1968, Toulmin's model of argument: an examination and extension. Quarterly

Journal of Speech, 54, 252-259.

[370] 'Het verband ontgaat me'

Ueding, G. en Steinbrink, B., 1986, Grundriss der Rhetorik. Geschichte, Technik, Methode.

Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche.

Vrijer, R. de, 1985, Ontbrekende premissen. In: W.K.B. Koning (red.), Taalbeheersing in

theorie en praktijk. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Walton, D.N., 1982, Topical relevance in argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamin,

Pragmatics and Beyond III: 8.

Walton, D.N., 1983, Enthymemes. Logique & analyse, 103-104, 395-410.

Weddle, P., 1979, Inductive, deductive. Informal Logic Newsletter, 2, 2, 1-5.

Weddle, P., 1980, Good grief! More on deduction/induction. Informal Logic Newsletter,

3, 1, 10-13.

Wenzel, J.W., 1982, O n fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal of the

American Forensic Association, 28, 204-213.

Werth, P., 1981, The concept of 'relevance' in conversational analysis. In: P. Werth (ed.),

Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm, 129-155.

Willard, C.A., 1976, O n the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism

of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43, 308-320.

Willard, C.A., 1989, A theory of argumentation. University (AL): University of Alabama.

Woods, J., 1990, Missing premisses in pragma-dialectics. In: Logique & Analyse 129-130,

155-168.