Shaming in and into Argumentation
Issue Date
2007Author
Innocenti, Beth
Publisher
Springer Verlag
Type
Article
Article Version
Scholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Shame appeals may be both relevant to and make possible argumentation with reluctant addressees. I propose a normative pragmatic model of practical reasoning involved in shame appeals and show that its explanatory power exceeds that of a more traditional account of an underlying practical inference structure. I also illustrate that analyzing the formal propriety of shame appeals offers a more complete explanation of their normative pragmatic force than an application of rules for dialogue types.
Description
This is the author's accepted manuscript. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com.
Collections
Citation
Manolescu, Beth Innocenti. "Shaming in and into Argumentation." Argumentation 21 (2007): 379-95.
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.