Justice and Argument: Toward Development of a Dialogical Argumentation Theory

References

• Anderson, R. , Cissna, K.N. , & Arnett, R. C. (Eds.). (1994). The reach of dialogue: Confirmation, voice, and community. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. , Baxter, L. A. , Cissna, K. N. (Eds.). (2004). Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Arnett, R. C. (1990). The practical philosophy of communication ethics and free speech as the foundation for speech communication. Communication Quarterly , 38, 208–217.
   Google Scholar
• Arthos, J. (2004). Almost speaking a new rhetoric: The strangeness of the text of La Novella Rhetorique. Southern Communication Journal. 70, 31–45.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, S. , & Martinson, D. L. (2001). The TARES test: Five principles for ethical persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 16, 148–175.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, C. , & Chasin, L. , (1995). From stuck debate to new conversation on controversial issues: A report from the public conversation project. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy , 7, 143–163.
   Google Scholar
• Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 1, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bitzer, L. F. (1980). Functional communication: A situational perspective. In E. E. White (Ed.), Rhetoric in transition: Studies in the nature and uses of rhetoric (pp. 21–38).
   Google Scholar
• Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. , & Krasner, B. R. (1986). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
   Google Scholar
• Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. (1986). Transgenerational solidarity: The expanding context of therapy and prevention. The American Journal of Family Therapy 14, 195–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. , Grunebaum, J. , & Ulrich, D. (1991). Contextual therapy. In S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy , 2 (pp. 200–238). A New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 200–238.
   Google Scholar
• Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. The Journal of Business Communication 34, 88–202.
   Google Scholar
• Brockriede, W. (1972). Arguers as lovers. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 5, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, C. T. , & Keller, P.W. (1994). Ethics. In R. Anderson , K. N. Cissna , & R. C. Arnett (Eds.), The reach of dialogue: Confirmation, voice, and community (pp. 284–289). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buber, M. (1965a). Between man and man. ( R. G. Smith , Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Buber, M. (1965b). The knowledge of man. ( M. Friedman & R. G. Smith , Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. ( W. Kaufmann , Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's.
   Google Scholar
• Chasin, R. & Herzig, M. (1993). Creating systemic interventions for the sociopolitical arena. In B. Berger-Gould & D. H. DeMuth (Eds.), The global family therapist: Integrating the personal, professional and political (pp. 141–192). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Church, R. , & Wilbanks, C. L. (1986). Values and policies in controversy. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A. (1976). Martin Buber, dialogue, and the philosophy of rhetoric. In D.G. Douglas (Ed.) Philosophers on rhetoric: Traditional and emerging views (pp. 225–242). Skokie, Ill: National Textbook Company.
   Google Scholar
• Crosswhite, J. (1996). The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Czubaroff, J. (2000). Dialogical rhetoric: An application of Martin Buber's philosophy of dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 86, 168–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dankoski, M. E. (2000). Using a feminist lens in contextual therapy. Family Process 39, 51–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations and its uses. Speech Monographs 42, 101–110.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, S. K. , & Griffin, C. I. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62, 2–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. (1989). Martin Buber and Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy: The role of dialogue in contextual therapy. Psychotherapy 26, 402–409.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. (1998). Buber's philosophy as the basis for dialogical psychotherapy and contextual therapy. The journal of Humanistic Psychology 38, 25–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garret, M. , & Xiao, X. (1993). The rhetorical situation revisited. Rhetoric Society Quarterly , 23, 30–40.
   Google Scholar
• Gearhart, S. M. (1979). The womanization of rhetoric. Women's Studies International Quarterly , 2, 195–201.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D.A. (2003, November). Plato's Phaedrus in communication studies: An Historical Overview. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Convention Association, Miami Beach, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Grunebaum, J. (1990). From discourse to dialogue: The power of fairness in therapy with couples. In R. Chasin , H. Grunebaum , & M. Herzig (Eds.), One couple, four realities: Multiple perspectives on couple therapy (pp. 191–228). NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, G. A. (1986). Introduction to rhetorical theory. NY: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, J. A. (2001). Rethinking our approach to the basic course: Making ethics the foundation of introduction to public speaking. Basic Communication Course Annual , 13, 76–115.
   Google Scholar
• Hollihan, T. , & Baaske, K. (1994). Arguments and arguing: The products and process of human decision making. NY: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Makau, J. M. & Marty, D. L. (2001). Cooperative argumentation: A model for deliberative community. Prospect Hts., IL: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Natanson, M. (1965a). The limits of rhetoric. In M. Natanson & H. W. Johnstone, Jr. , (Eds.), Philosopohy, rhetoric, and argumentation (pp. 93–101). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Natanson, M. (1965b). The claims of immediacy. In M. Natanson & H. W. Johnstone, Jr. , (Eds.), Philosopohy, rhetoric, and argumentation (pp. 10–19). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, W. B. , & Littlejohn, S. W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C. (1967). Justice. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Perelman, C. , & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. ( J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver , Trans.). London: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schreck, G. P. (2005). Interview. Devon, PA, September 29.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, P. (2002). The philosophic importance of political life: On the ‘Digression’ in Plato's Theaetetus. American Political Science Review 96, 275–289.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. , & Zediker, K. (2000). Dialogue as tensional ethical practice. Southern Communication Journal 65, 224–242.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, K. R. (1955). An ethical basis of communication. The Speech Teacher , 4, (1), 1–9.
   Google Scholar