Response to Paul Prior
In a reply to Paul Prior's (2005) response to Andrews's "Models of Argumentation in Educational Discourse" (Text, 2005, 25, 1, 107-127), it is argued that Andrews's & Prior's positions are complementary & that both are needed for the development of a superior th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Text & talk 2005-01, Vol.25 (1), p.145-147 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 147 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 145 |
| container_title | Text & talk |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Andrews, Richard |
| description | In a reply to Paul Prior's (2005) response to Andrews's "Models of Argumentation in Educational Discourse" (Text, 2005, 25, 1, 107-127), it is argued that Andrews's & Prior's positions are complementary & that both are needed for the development of a superior theory of argumentation. Skepticism regarding models of argumentation on the part of Prior & S. Toulmin (2003) is addressed by emphasizing the criterial importance of the purpose of a model; in the field of textual composition, frequent application of models to problems they were not designed to address does not invalidate models as working tools distilled from practice. A collaboration with Prior to construct a satisfactory model of composition in argument is envisioned, based on Prior's reference to the notion of multiple laminated framings in Erving Goffman's (1974) theory of frame analysis. 9 References. J. Hitchcock |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2405809770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>85614953</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2985-62be6ff9d32caa4b3991081afc820062ae00ba07e0124fa97d42222a3abfb77a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1Lw0AQxRdRsNRePXgqCN4SZ_Y7N6VaPyhYRUG8LJt0I9HY1N0E9b93S0RBEOcyc_i9NzOPkD2EFAWKw9a9tykFECkVKabIxQYZoESWcES1SQaAUiRca71NRiFUOQDVkDGlBmT3xoVVswxu3Dbjue3q8dxXjd8hW6Wtgxt99SG5m57eTs6T2dXZxeR4lhQ00yKRNHeyLLMFo4W1PGdZhqDRloWO90hqHUBuQTlAykubqQWnsSyzeZkrZdmQHPS-K9-8di605qUKhatru3RNF4wWEnkm2L8g0yBBcIjg_i_wqen8Mj5hKAcR_1ZqTdGeKnwTgnelWfnqxfoPg2DWoZp1qGYdqqHCoImhRtFRL3qzdev8wj367iMOPxv-FlOBvUXSW1QhMt9LrX82UjElzPUtN5cP2cnD_UyaKfsEOCKMOQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2405809770</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Response to Paul Prior</title><source>De Gruyter journals</source><creator>Andrews, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>In a reply to Paul Prior's (2005) response to Andrews's "Models of Argumentation in Educational Discourse" (Text, 2005, 25, 1, 107-127), it is argued that Andrews's & Prior's positions are complementary & that both are needed for the development of a superior theory of argumentation. Skepticism regarding models of argumentation on the part of Prior & S. Toulmin (2003) is addressed by emphasizing the criterial importance of the purpose of a model; in the field of textual composition, frequent application of models to problems they were not designed to address does not invalidate models as working tools distilled from practice. A collaboration with Prior to construct a satisfactory model of composition in argument is envisioned, based on Prior's reference to the notion of multiple laminated framings in Erving Goffman's (1974) theory of frame analysis. 9 References. J. Hitchcock</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-4888</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1860-7330</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1613-4117</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1860-7349</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TXTHDF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>The Hague: Walter de Gruyter</publisher><subject>Communication ; Discourse ; Prior, Paul ; Rhetoric ; Sociolinguistics</subject><ispartof>Text & talk, 2005-01, Vol.25 (1), p.145-147</ispartof><rights>Walter de Gruyter</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwalterdegruyter$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,66497,68281</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>Response to Paul Prior</title><title>Text & talk</title><addtitle>Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse</addtitle><description>In a reply to Paul Prior's (2005) response to Andrews's "Models of Argumentation in Educational Discourse" (Text, 2005, 25, 1, 107-127), it is argued that Andrews's & Prior's positions are complementary & that both are needed for the development of a superior theory of argumentation. Skepticism regarding models of argumentation on the part of Prior & S. Toulmin (2003) is addressed by emphasizing the criterial importance of the purpose of a model; in the field of textual composition, frequent application of models to problems they were not designed to address does not invalidate models as working tools distilled from practice. A collaboration with Prior to construct a satisfactory model of composition in argument is envisioned, based on Prior's reference to the notion of multiple laminated framings in Erving Goffman's (1974) theory of frame analysis. 9 References. J. Hitchcock</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Discourse</subject><subject>Prior, Paul</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Sociolinguistics</subject><issn>0165-4888</issn><issn>1860-7330</issn><issn>1613-4117</issn><issn>1860-7349</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkM1Lw0AQxRdRsNRePXgqCN4SZ_Y7N6VaPyhYRUG8LJt0I9HY1N0E9b93S0RBEOcyc_i9NzOPkD2EFAWKw9a9tykFECkVKabIxQYZoESWcES1SQaAUiRca71NRiFUOQDVkDGlBmT3xoVVswxu3Dbjue3q8dxXjd8hW6Wtgxt99SG5m57eTs6T2dXZxeR4lhQ00yKRNHeyLLMFo4W1PGdZhqDRloWO90hqHUBuQTlAykubqQWnsSyzeZkrZdmQHPS-K9-8di605qUKhatru3RNF4wWEnkm2L8g0yBBcIjg_i_wqen8Mj5hKAcR_1ZqTdGeKnwTgnelWfnqxfoPg2DWoZp1qGYdqqHCoImhRtFRL3qzdev8wj367iMOPxv-FlOBvUXSW1QhMt9LrX82UjElzPUtN5cP2cnD_UyaKfsEOCKMOQ</recordid><startdate>20050101</startdate><enddate>20050101</enddate><creator>Andrews, Richard</creator><general>Walter de Gruyter</general><general>De Gruyter</general><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050101</creationdate><title>Response to Paul Prior</title><author>Andrews, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2985-62be6ff9d32caa4b3991081afc820062ae00ba07e0124fa97d42222a3abfb77a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Discourse</topic><topic>Prior, Paul</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Sociolinguistics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Andrews, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Text & talk</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Andrews, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Response to Paul Prior</atitle><jtitle>Text & talk</jtitle><addtitle>Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse</addtitle><date>2005-01-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>145</spage><epage>147</epage><pages>145-147</pages><issn>0165-4888</issn><issn>1860-7330</issn><eissn>1613-4117</eissn><eissn>1860-7349</eissn><coden>TXTHDF</coden><abstract>In a reply to Paul Prior's (2005) response to Andrews's "Models of Argumentation in Educational Discourse" (Text, 2005, 25, 1, 107-127), it is argued that Andrews's & Prior's positions are complementary & that both are needed for the development of a superior theory of argumentation. Skepticism regarding models of argumentation on the part of Prior & S. Toulmin (2003) is addressed by emphasizing the criterial importance of the purpose of a model; in the field of textual composition, frequent application of models to problems they were not designed to address does not invalidate models as working tools distilled from practice. A collaboration with Prior to construct a satisfactory model of composition in argument is envisioned, based on Prior's reference to the notion of multiple laminated framings in Erving Goffman's (1974) theory of frame analysis. 9 References. J. Hitchcock</abstract><cop>The Hague</cop><pub>Walter de Gruyter</pub><doi>10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0165-4888 |
| ispartof | Text & talk, 2005-01, Vol.25 (1), p.145-147 |
| issn | 0165-4888 1860-7330 1613-4117 1860-7349 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2405809770 |
| source | De Gruyter journals |
| subjects | Communication Discourse Prior, Paul Rhetoric Sociolinguistics |
| title | Response to Paul Prior |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T06%3A09%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Response%20to%20Paul%20Prior&rft.jtitle=Text%20&%20talk&rft.au=Andrews,%20Richard&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=145&rft.epage=147&rft.pages=145-147&rft.issn=0165-4888&rft.eissn=1613-4117&rft.coden=TXTHDF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.145&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85614953%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2405809770&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |