Fotograaf: onbekend

dhr. dr. B.J. (Bart) Garssen


  • Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen
    Capaciteitsgroep Taalbeheersing, Argumentatietheorie en Retorica
  • Bezoekadres
    P.C. Hoofthuis
    Spuistraat 134  Amsterdam
    Kamernummer: 5.04
  • Postadres:
    Spuistraat  134
    1012 VB  Amsterdam
  • B.J.Garssen@uva.nl
    T: 0205254714
    T: 0205254716

Bart Garssen is lecturer in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric in the University of Amsterdam.

 

His interests include argument schemes, fallacies and political argumentation and empirical research. He is editor of the Journal of Argumentation in Context (Benjamins) and book review editor of Argumentation (Springer).

Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness

In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness , Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried outduring more than ten years start from thepragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research.

Controversy and Confrontation

The essays that are collected in Controversy and Confrontation provide a closer insight into the relationship between controversy and confrontation that deepens our understanding of the functioning of argumentative discourse in managing differences of opinion. Their authors stem from two backgrounds. First, the controversy scholars Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl discuss historical controversies in science, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective; Saim concentrates on a historical controversy; Fritz provides a historical perspective on controversies by analyzing communication principles. Second the argumentation scholars Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation; Aakhus and Vasilyeva examine argumentative discourse from the perspective of conversation analysis; Jackson analyzes argumentative confrontation in a recent debate between scientists and politicians. Last but not least, two contributors, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an attempt to bridge the study of historical controversy and the study of argumentation.

Pondering on Problems of Argumentation

Pondering on Problems of Argumentation is a collection of twenty essays brought together for anyone who is interested in theoretical issues in the study of argumentation. This collection of papers gives the reader an insightful and balanced view of the kind of theoretical issues argumentation theorists are currently concerned with. Because most of the perspectives onargumentation thatare en vogue are represented, this volume provides a multidisciplinary and even interdisciplinary outlook on the current state of affairs in argumentation theory. Some of the contributions in Pondering on Problems of Argumentation deal with problems of argumentation that have been recognized as theoretical issues for a considerable time, like the problems of fallaciousness and identifying argumentation structures. Other contributions discuss issues that have become a focus of attention only recently or regained their prominence, such as the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, and the strategic use of the argumentative technique of dissociation. In five separate sections papers are included dealing with argumentative strategies, problems of norms of reasonableness and fallaciousness, types of argument and argument schemes the structure of argumentation and rules for advocacy and discussion.

2016

  • Garssen, B. J. (2016). Face the consequences! Strategic maneuvering with the argumentum ad consequentiam. In F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, & S. Felletti (Eds.), The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion. (pp. 245-253). (Studies in logic: Mathematical logic and foundations; No. 59). London: College Publications. [details]
  • Garssen, B. (2016). Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament. Argumentation, 30(1), 25-43. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9378-y [details] [PDF]

2015

  • Garssen, B. (2015). Pragma-dialectics. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Boston: John Wiley & Sons. [details]
  • Garssen, B. (2015). Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate. In M. Lewiński, & D. Mohammed (Eds.), Argumentation in political deliberation. (pp. 33-46). (Benjamins current topics; No. 76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). Analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 507-519). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_26 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 859-872). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_47 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). In Varietate Concordia-United in diversity: European Parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 843-858). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_46 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). Linguistic criteria for judging composition and division fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 595-609). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_31 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). Reconstructing argumentative discourse with the help of speech act conditions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 469-486). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_24 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). De vermomde ad baculum drogreden empirisch onderzocht. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 37(1), 79-96. DOI: 10.1557/TVT2015.1.EEME [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 771-791). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_42 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The Disguised Ad Baculum Fallacy Empirically Investigated: Strategic Maneuvering With Threats. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), International Society for the Study of Argumentation: 8th International Conference on Argumentation: July 1-July 4, 2014, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (pp. 1396-1407). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 793-811). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_43 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with threats. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 813-824). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_44 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). Efectividad razonabele: pasos preliminares para una investicación pragma-dialéctica de la efectividad. In F. Leal Carretero (Ed.), Argumentación y pragma-dialéctica: estudios en honor a Frans van Eemeren. (pp. 178-203). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). Investigación empírica del ad hominem abusivo: Maniobrar estratégico con ataques personales directos. In F. Leal Carretero (Ed.), Argumentación y pragma-dialéctica: estudios en honor a Frans van Eemeren. (pp. 257-279). Guadalajara: Editiorial Universitaria Universidad de Guadalajara. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpretated. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 757-769). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_41 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. (2015). El método pragma-dialéctico de análisis y evaluación. In F. Leal Carretero (Ed.), Argumentación y pragma-dialéctica: estudios en honor a Frans van Eemeren. (pp. 127-154). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2015). Viewing the study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. (pp. 275-296). (Argumentation Library; No. 27). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_14 [details]

2014

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2014). Analogie-argumentatie in stereotiepe argumentative patronen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 36(1), 31-50. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2014.1.EEME [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy. (pp. 41-56). (Argumentation library; No. 25). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_3 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [details]

2013

  • Garssen, B. (2013). Strategic maneuvering In European parliamentary debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(1), 33-46. DOI: 10.1075/jaic.2.1.02gar [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2013). Argumentative patterns in discourse. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of argumentation: proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA. [details] [PDF]

2012

  • Garssen, B. (2012). Charges of inconsistency and the tu quoque fallacy. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Inside arguments: logic and the study of argumentation. (pp. 157-168). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. [details / files]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2012). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. (pp. 43-58). (Argumentation in context; No. 4). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/aic.4.03van [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). De vermomde 'abusive ad hominem'-drogreden empirisch onderzocht: strategisch manoeuvreren met directe persoonlijke aanvallen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 34(2), 135-155. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2012.2.DE_V423 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). Effectiveness through reasonableness: a pragma-dialectical perspective: preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33-53. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9234-7 [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The disguised 'abusive ad hominem' empirically investigated: strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344-364. DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2012.678666 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F. H. Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: twenty exploratory studies. (pp. 323-343). (Argumentation library; No. 22). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_21 [details]

2011

  • Garssen, B., & Kienpointner, M. (2011). Figurative analogy in political argumentation. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. (pp. 39-58). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]
  • Visser, J., Bex, F., Reed, C., & Garssen, B. (2011). Correspondence between the pragma-dialectical discussion model and the argument interchange format. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 189-224. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis. In R. C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change: selected papers from the 17th Biennial Conference on Argumentation. (pp. 25-47). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2011). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. 411-422). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. [details] [PDF]

2010

  • Garssen, B., & van Laar, J. A. (2010). A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal logic, 30(2), 122-141. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19-37. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). Constraints on political deliberation: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In D. S. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social context: selected papers from the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation. (pp. 505-514). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. [details / files]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). Linguistic criteria for judging composition and division fallacies. In A. Capone (Ed.), Perspectives on language use and pragmatics: a volume in memory of Sorin Stati. (pp. 35-50). (LINCOM studies in pragmatics; No. 16). München: Lincom Europa. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2010). De uitgebreide pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie empirisch geïnterpreteerd. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 32(1), 49-62. DOI: 10.5117/TVT2010.1.DE_U370 [details]

2009

  • Garssen, B. (2009). Ad hominem in disguise: strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(4), 207-213. [details]
  • Garssen, B. (2009). Comparing the incomparable: figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: twenty essays on theoretical issues. (pp. 133-140). (Argumentation library; No. 14). [Dordrecht]: Springer. [details]
  • Garssen, B., & van Laar, J. A. (2009). De pragma-dialectiek en de objectieve epistemische benadering van argumentatie. In W. Spooren, M. Onrust, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 3. (pp. 73-83). Assen: Van Gorcum. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). The fallacies of composition and division revisited. Cogency, 1(1), 23-42. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of course: an overview of research in discourse studies. (pp. 171-184). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). Putting pragma-dialectics into practice. In J. Sobocan, & L. Groarke (Eds.), Critical thinking education and assessment: can higher order thinking be tested?. (pp. 247-262). London, ONT: Althouse. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. (Argumentation library; No. 16). Dordrecht: Springer. [details]

2008

  • Garssen, B. (2008). Comments on ''Arguing 'for' the patient: Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor-patient interaction". Argumentation, 22(3), 433-435. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9085-z [details] [PDF]
  • Garssen, B. (2008). Seemingly unreasonable Ad hominem fallacies and legitimate personal attacks. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato, & A. Kubuta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation: argumentation, the law and justice. (pp. 66-69). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association. [details] [PDF]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2008). Controversy and confrontation in argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. (pp. 1-26). (Controversies; No. 6). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2008). Preface. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. (pp. vii-viii). (Controversies; No. 6). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2008). Reasonableness in confrontation: empirical evidence concerning the assessment of ad hominem fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. (pp. 181-195). (Controversies; No. 6). Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins. [details]

2007

  • Garssen, B. J. (2007). Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. 437-440). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details]
  • Garssen, B. J. (2007). Esquemas argumentativos (translation). In R. Marafioti (Ed.), Parlamentos. Teoría de la argumentación y debate parlamentario. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels, B. (2007). Convergent operations in empirical ad hominem research. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. 367-373). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2007). De conventionele deugdelijkheid van de pragma-dialectische discussieregels. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(3), 251-274. [details]

2006

  • Garssen, B. J. (2006). Beweringen met nare consequenties: twee varianten van het argumentum ad consequentiam. In B. J. Garssen, & F. H. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Rozenberg. [details]
  • Garssen, B. J., van Eemeren, F. H., & Meuffels, B. (2006). This can't be true, that would be terrible: Ordinary arguers judgments about ad consequentiam fallacies. In C. A. Willard (Ed.), Critical Problems in Argumentation. Selected Papers. (pp. 669-675). Washington DC: National Communication Association. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2006). La validez convencional de la regla pragma-dialectica de libertad. Praxis, 9, 17-32. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2006). Apples and oranges, peer pressure, and other such troublemakers: ordinary arguers' opinions about violations of the pragma-dialectical argument scheme rule. In P. Riley, & C. Willis-Chun (Eds.), Engaging argument: selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation: sponsored by the National Communication Association, the American Forensics Association, and the University of Utah. (pp. 445-452). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. [details]

2013

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2013). Viewing the study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy. (pp. 515-536). (Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology; No. 1). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_24 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2013). De vermomde abusive ad hominem empirisch onderzocht: strategisch manoeuvreren met directe persoonlijke aanvallen. In R. Boogaart, & H. Jansen (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 4. (pp. 81-90). Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. [details]

2012

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2012). Dialogue rules for argumentation. In S. Cantarini (Ed.), Dialogue: state of the art: studies in memory of Sorin Stati. (pp. 272-286). (LINCOM studies in pragmatics; No. 22). München: Lincom Europa. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2012). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation: the plenary debate in the European Parliament as an argumentative activity type. In M. Constantinescu, G. Stoica, & O. Uţă Bărbulescu (Eds.), Modernitate și interdisciplinaritate în cercetarea lingvistică: omagiu doamnei profesor Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu. (pp. 227-241). București: Editura Universităţii din București. [details] [PDF]

2011

  • Feteris, E., Garssen, B., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2011). Introduction. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. (pp. 1-4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [details]

2009

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In J. Ritola (Ed.), Argument cultures: proceedings of OSSA '09. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. [details] [PDF]

2007

  • Garssen, B. J. (2007). Argumenten in lijn. Een mening met een kaart funderen. Tekst[blad], 13(3), 16-19. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. J. (2007). Kwantitatief emperisch onderzoek van argumentatie. Ter inleiding. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 29(3), 193-195. [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Blair, J. A., Willard, C. A., & Garssen, B. J. (2007). Preface. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. xv). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. [details]

2014

  • Garssen, B. (2014). Boekbesprekingen van Šorm (2010) en Timmers (2014) [Bespreking van: E. Šorm (2010) The good, the bad and the persuasive: normative quality and actual persuasivenes of arguments from authority, arguments from cause to effect and arguments from example; R.H.M. Timmers (2014) De wapens van de lezer: criteria voor argumentkwaliteit en de overtuigingskracht van argumentatie op basis van autoriteit, analogie en voor- en nadelen]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 36(3), 324-330. DOI: 10.1557/TVT2014.3.DAZE [details]

2012

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. J. (2012). Some highlights in recent theorizing: an introduction. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory: twenty exploratory studies. (pp. 1-14). (Argumentation library; No. 22). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_1 [details]
  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2012). Introduction. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. (pp. xiii-xx). (Argumentation in context; No. 4). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/aic.4.002int [details]

2010

  • Garssen, B. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: twenty-five years of Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Cogency, 2(1), 13-21. [details]

Boekredactie

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2008). Controversy and confrontation: relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. (Controversies; No. 6). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [details]
  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Garssen, B. J. (2006). De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publications. [details]
This list of publications is extracted from the UvA-Current Research Information System. Questions? Ask the library or the Pure staff of your faculty / institute. Log in to Pure to edit your publications.
  • Geen nevenwerkzaamheden

contactgegevens bewerken bewerk tabbladen