Literature Review INFORMAL LOGlC XIII.3, Fall 1991 Argumentation in Germany and Austria: An Overview of the Recent Literature MANFRED KIENPOINTNER Universitiit lnnsbruck 1. Present Situation After World War II, due to the misuse of rhetoric in Nazi propaganda, rhetoric and argumentation played no major role at uni- versities, colleges and schools in Austria and Germany. This started to change from the early seventies onwards. Today the situation is completely different: public speech and techniques of debate have found their place in the curriculum both at the high school level and in academic institutions; there is an evergrowing amount of research and publishing activities, which has produced such a wealth of literature that I can't seriously claim to be able to give an exhaustive overview. 2. Institutions Despite the current interest in rhetoric and argumentation, there are usually no departments specialized in the study of argumentation in Austria and Germany (like the departments of speech and com- munication in the United States and else- where). Among the most notable exceptions are the Institute of General Rhetoric (Seminar Jur Allgemeine Rhetorik) at the University of TubingeniGermany and the Department of Speech and Communication (Fachgebiet Sprechkunde und Sprecherziehung) at the University of SaarbruckeniGermany. But most research on argumentation is done at departments of linguistics, philosophy and law. Moreover, no overall association (com- parable to the International Society for the Study of Argumentation) has been estab- lished so far by people doing research in the field of rhetoric and argumentation in the German-speaking area. 3. Conferences and Publishing Activities Due to the diversity of institutions there is more communication within departments andlor faculties than across disciplines. But there are also a few interdisciplinary activities: • A first step was made already in 1975 at the ZentrumJur interdiszipliniire Forschung (Centre for Interdisciplinary Research) at the University of Bielefeld: a conference on argumentation was attended by representa- tives of various disciplines; their contribu- tions are published in Schecker (1977). • Starting in the seventies, J. Kopper- schmidt, H. F. Plett, H. Schanze and others organized conferences on subjects like "rhetorical perspectives," "argumentative topics," "argument/argumentation" and "rhetoric and philosophy." The proceedings have been published regularly (see Plett 1977; Breuer and Schanze 1981; Kopper- schmidt and Schanze 1985; Schanze and Kopperschmidt 1989). Here experts from various fields (rhetoric, philosophy, law and linguistics) come together and deal with the specific themes of the conferences follow- ing different interests and methods. 130 Manfred Kienpointner • An Historical Encyclopedia of Rhetoric is being edited by W. Jens and G. Ueding (Institute of General Rhetoric, University of Tiibingen); the first two volumes of the Historisches Worterbuch der Rhetorik are in press. In connection with this project, an interdisciplinary conference on Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften (Rhetoric between the Disciplines) was organized in 1989; the proceedings were published by Ueding (1990). • In 1980, an annual periodical, Rhetoric. Ein internationales lahrbuch, was started. It is edited by W. Jens, G. Ueding and J. Dyck and contains articles, reviews and bibliographical information on all aspects of rhetoric, including special issues in rhetoric and related subjects (like rhetoric and linguistics and rhetoric and theology). • Occasionally, other journals devote special issues to themes like "argumenta- tion," e.g., Der Deutschunterricht 27 (1975), 28 (1976) and Zeitschrift fiir Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 38/39 (1980) . • A bibliography of research on rhetoric and argumentation in the German-speaking area from 1945 to 1980 was published by Jamison and Dyck (1983). 4. Active Figures and Groups In the following, I give a survey (which is far from being complete) of prominent authors. Most of them have produced a con- siderable amount of literature on rhetoric and argumentation. I start with scholars who are particularly interested in rhetoric (and speech and communication) and then go on to specialists from linguistics, philos- ophy and law. Among German rhetoricians, I want to mention J. Kopperschmidt, who has written outstanding contributions to the field of rhetoric and argumentation. He has devel- oped a comprehensive normative theory, using insights from ancient rhetoric, speech act theory and text linguistics and the theory of communication and argumentation of J. Habermas (see Kopperschmidt's books 1976a, 1980, 1989a). Moreover, he has written many articles on the history ofrhet- oric and the applications of theoretical frameworks to the analysis and evaluation of political speeches (Kopperschmidt 1975, 1976b, 1977, 1981, 1989b, 1990a). Recently, he edited two books on rhetoric as a theory of the production of texts and influ- ences of rhetoric in other disciplines (Kopperschmidt 1990b, 1991). A concise exposition of central concepts of Kopper- schmidt's view of argumentation in English is available in van Eemeren et aT. (1987). I have already mentioned the activities of W. Jens and G. Ueding as editors of the Historisches Worterbuch der Rhetorik and the periodical Rhetoric. Ein internationaTes lahrbuch. Moreover, Jens has written many important contributions to the study of political rhetoric and the history of rhetoric (see the collection in Jens 1983). Together with B. Steinbrink, G. Ueding has written an introduction to rhetoric based on the classical tradition, including a short survey of the history of rhetoric from antiquity to the 20th century (Ueding and Steinbrink 1986). G. Kalivoda, who is also editing the Historisches Worterbuch der Rhetorik at the Institute of General Rhetoric in Tiibingen, is the author of a book on structures and processes of political argumentation (Kalivoda 1986). He uses classical rhetoric, modem argumentation theory and histori- cal studies as background for an empirical analysis of debates in the first Prussian parliament in Berlin in 1847. My next remarks are concerned with a distinguished representative of the study of speech and communication in the German-speaking area, namely, H. GeiBner. Besides practical contributions to the field, he has developed a theory of oral communication based on insights from semiotics, linguistics and the rhetorical tra- dition (Sprechwissenschaft; see GeiBner 1978, 1981). Though GeiBner has also con- tributed to the critical evaluation of actual rhetorical practice, he takes a less nonnative stance than Kopperschmidt and is less willing to "idealize away" actual restric- tions of dialogical and argumentative abil- ity (see GeiBner 1977). An English survey of his basic theoretical concepts can be found in van Eemeren et al. (1987). Another expert dealing with questions of speech and communication is N. Gutenburg. He has contributed to the pro- cesses of listening, understanding and judgement (Gutenburg 1984), but also to the discussion of rhetoric, dialectic and truth (cf. his English paper in van Eemeren et ai. 1987). To finish this short survey in speech and communication, I want to mention L. Berger, who has written several articles on verbal and nonverbal clues of ironic argumentation (e.g., Berger 1988). In the context of rhetoric and literary criticism, some books and articles have been written to show how categories of ancient rhetoric can be used for the descrip- tion and interpretation of literary texts: H. Plett has used ancient classifications of fig- ures of speech, but also insights from semi- otics and text linguistics to establish a new typology of stylistic devices (Plett 1975); M. Beetz has tried to show the influence of classical rhetoric (and logic) in works of Baroque literature (Beetz 1980a, 1980b), and he has also written a paper on the modi- fications of the notion of "argument" ("ar- gumentum") in rhetorical treatises of the 17th and 18th centuries (Beetz 1985). J. Brandt has used categories of ancient rheto- ric to describe the structure of argumenta- tive dialogues in Seneca's tragedies (Brandt 1986). As far as metatheory of literary criti- cism is concerned, I would like to mention S. Schmidt's paper on argumentation in lit- erary criticism (Schmidt 1977). I now tum to linguistic studies ofargu- mentation. From the early seventies onwards, the developments in speech act theory and conversation analysis caused a strong interest on the part of linguists in speech acts like "to argue," "to explain," "to prove" and various sorts of argumentative Argumentation in Germany and Austria 131 dialogues. Linguistic studies very often are strongly influenced by the theories of argu- mentation of S. Toulmin and J. Habermas (much less by Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca). Quite often, the main interest is empirical description and a corpus of writ- ten or spoken argumentative texts is used. Usually, linguists are not very interested in the use of fonnallogic for the description of everyday argumentation and only rarely try to develop new kinds of formalisms (but see the fonnally oriented studies of Metzing 1975, Wunderlich 1980 and Heidrich 1982). A project on the formal analysis of natural language argumentation is going on at the University of Bielefeld, organized by W. Kindt. Many linguists deal with the famous Toulmin-scheme and try to apply it to the analysis of argumentative texts (e.g., Huth 1975, Settekorn 1977, Gottert 1978 and Quasthoff 1978); others try to integrate G. H. von Wright's concept of practical syllo- gism with Toulmin's scheme (e.g., Schwitalla 1976 or V61zing 1979, who pro- vides a complex extension of Toulmin's scheme). On the other hand, some linguists try to reduce the Toulmin-scheme and argue for a basic scheme with only three catego- ries, e.g., OhlschIager (1979, 1980; this scheme is taken up in Kienpointner 1983): Argument ~ Konklusion ( = data, ground) I (claim) SchluJ3prasupposition ( = warrant) A comprehensive typology of schemes of everyday argumentation is developed in Kienpointner (1992; English surveys ofthe typology and some examples are available in van Eemeren et al. (1987) and in Kienpointner (in press». The typology is based on the ancient topical tradition (espe- cially Aristotle's Topics) and modern approaches (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, Hastings, Schell ens, van Eemeren and Kruiger, Govier) and applied to a corpus of spoken and written argumentative texts. 132 Manfred Kienpointner Another line of linguistic research is connected with speech act theory and the analysis of (sequences of) speech acts in argumentative texts. OhlschHiger (1979) treats the speech act "to argue," Strecker (1976) describes the speech act "to prove," Klein (1987) deals with a whole group of speech acts like "to confirm," "to explain," "to infer" and "to justify." Apeltauer (1978) gives a comprehensive survey of sequences of speech acts, moves and strategies in debates and discussions (cf. also Zillig 1982). There are only a few studies which treat the macrostructure of argumentative texts. In all of them, the overall structure of the text(s) is made visible with the help of complex diagrams which show the interre- lation of the simple (that is, not complex) arguments (see Deimer 1975; Grewendorf 1975, 1980; Klein 1980; Frixen 1987; Kopperschmidt 1989a). Other linguistic approaches concentrate on the conflict management in dialogues and conflict-solving strategies. These stud- ies combine psychological and sociological perspectives with techniques of conversa- tion analysis (e.g., tum taking mecha- nisms), e.g., Frankenberg (1976), Schwitalla (1987a). The English paper of Schwitalla contained in van Eemeren et al. (1987) shows that argumentation is not only a means to solve conflicts, but also an instrument to maintain consensus and to confirm group identity. VOlzing has written a book on the development of argumenta- tive capacities from early childhood onwards (1981; see the English survey in van Eemeren et ai. 1987). The relations between ideology, mass media and argumentation are being studied by a research group at the University of Vienna (see Wodak et al. 1990). Using lin- guistic, psychological and sociological methods, this group analyzes a corpus of texts (editorials, TV interviews, recordings of street interviews) to detect and describe anti-semitic tendencies in the political dis- course of Austria before and after the elec- tion of K. Waldheim. I want to finish this overview of linguis- tic research on argumentation in the German-speaking area with a few remarks concerning linguistic activities in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). From the sixties onwards, W. Schmidt developed a functional-communi- cative theory of grammar (see Schmidt et al. 1981). Based on a Marxist perspective, a detailed typology of communicative devices (Kommunikationsveifahren) was established to provide the speaker with effi- cient tools to reach certain communicative goals. Among these procedures are also (complex) speech acts like "to argue," "to explain," "to prove," etc. The practical intention of these studies was to improve communicative competence (see Michel 1985 and similar approaches in Richter 1986, Holik 1988). Other studies published in the former GDR tried to elaborate approaches from text linguistics and speech act theory to describe speech acts like "to explain" or "to infer" (see Lang 1976, Pasch 1987, Rosengren 1987). Some of these studies contain ideological premisses and statements about political circumstances in the former GDR which are hardly accept- able (at least for me); but still, they are inter- esting contributions to the study of argumentation. Having surveyed the linguistic research, I now proceed to describe philo- sophical contributions. Philosophers, of course, are much more interested in theoret- ical (epistemological, methodological, log- ical) and normative perspectives. The most influential approaches (which are probably best known outside of Germany and Aus- tria) have been developed by J. Habermas (1971,1973,1988) and the members of the Erlangen school (KamIah and Lorenzen 1967; Lorenzen and Schwemmer 1973; Lorenzen and Lorenz 1978; Gethmann 1980; cf. also the English papers of Lorenz 1982, 1987). Habermas developed an ideal- ized, normative model of argumentation in an "ideal speech situation" (ideale Sprechsituation). The basic assumptions of ideal communicative action and argumenta- tion, however, are anticipated implicitly also in everyday situations; according to Habennas they can therefore serve as a critical standard for everyday argumentation. The Erlangen school transformed the classical model of deductive logic into a dialogical one and tried to formulate principles of rational dispute which are based on a criti- cal reconstruction of everyday language. Both approaches are interesting normative attempts, but so far it is hard to see how they could be put into practice, despite the efforts of Gerhardus et al. (1975) and Berk (1979) to come closer to everyday practice. Recently, Chr. Lumer has published a book where he develops an interesting nor- mative approach (Lumer 1990; see also the extensions of his norms in his English paper, 1988). He tries to establish explicit rules and principles of argumentation which are closer to everyday practice and still as rationally acceptable as possible. Moreover, Lumer tries to clarify basic epistemological and methodological prob- lems of argumentation theory, criticizing in some detail most of the standard approaches mentioned above. Another German philosopher with spe- cial interest in argumentation, H. Wohlrapp, discusses analytical and constructivistic theories of science and argues for a modi- fied dialogical procedure of justification (Wohlrapp 1979); in an English paper con- tained in van Eemeren et at. (1987), Wohlrapp criticizes Toulmin's scheme. Finally, I want to mention 1. Walther's book, Philosophisches A rgumen tier en (Phil- osophical Argumentation, 1990), which is a practical textbook containing formal and informal schemes and principles of philo- sophical argumentation. Walther gives a lot of examples from authentic philosophical texts and provides exercises (with solu- tions) at the end of each chapter. I now turn to studies of argumentation in law. They can be characterized as being influenced either by logical and normative schools of thought or by rhetorical and rela- Argumentation in Germany and Austria 133 tivistic approaches. The first branch takes up the work done in deontic logic and nor- mative models like the one of Habermas or the Erlangen school; the second follows the tradition of ancient topics (dialectic) and rhetoric. Alexy (1978) is an example of a highly elaborated normative model of legal argumentation which takes up standards of validity in deontic logic as well as discourse principles of Habermas and the Erlangen school. Alexy provides a set of explicitly stated rules for discussion about norms and values, which he then applies to legal argu- mentation. Rodingen (1977, 1981) is a rep- resentative of the group inspired by rhetoric (see also Ballweg 1989, Sobota 1990a and her English paper 1990b), taking up the revival of ancient topics and rhetoric which started with the work of Viehweg (1974, 1st edition 1953) and Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca. Another representative of this group is Th. Siebert (1977,1981; see also his Eng- lish paper in van Eemeren et al. 1987), who is influenced by ancient and modern rheto- ric and pragmatics. A useful overview of research on legal argumentation is given by Neumann (1986), who critically discusses contribu- tions from various theoretical backgrounds. 5. Trends and Tendencies As the overview in 4 indicates, there are some areas of research which are dealt with frequently in the German literature on rhet- oric and argumentation; moreover, there are a few authors, traditions and schools of thought which are especially influential. In the following, I want to sum them up briefly: (a) Main areas of research: • norms of argumentation, normative rules and principles of discourse; • speech acts, speech act sequences, structure of argumentative dialogues; • schemes of argumentation (formal and 134 Manfred Kienpointner infonnalones); • political argumentation, ideology and mass media; • strategies of argumentation, figures of speech. (b) Most influential theories and approaches: • the theories of argumentation of S. Toulmin and J. Habermas; • the dialogue logic developed by P. Lorenzen and others (Erlangen school); • speech act theory, text linguistics, conversation analysis; • modem semiotics, especially pragmatics; • ancient and modem rhetoric (especially the "New Rhetoric" ofCh. Perelman; • Wittgenstein's use theory of meaning (see especially Heringer et al. 1977, Strecker 1976, Ohlschlager 1979, Kienpointner 1983). 6. Conclusion The study of rhetoric and argumentation has become a strong (and still growing) movement in the Gennan-speaking area which crosses the borders of various disci- plines. My hope is, first, that this tendency will continue and, second, that the gaps between highly abstract and normative and rather simple empirical and practical approaches will be bridged in the near future. Bibliography Alexy, R. (1978): Theorie der juristischen Argu- mentation. FrankfurtlM. Apeltauer, E. (1978): Elemente und Verlaufsfor- men von Streitgespriichen. Ludwigsburg. Ballweg, O. (1989): Entwurf einer analytischen Rhetorik, in Schanze, H. and Kopperschmidt, J. (Hg.): Rhetorik und Philosophie. Miinchen, 229-47. Beetz, M. (1980a): Rhetorische Logik. Tiibingen. __ . (1980b): Disputatorik und Argumentation in Andreas Gryphius' Trauerspiel Leo Armen- ius, in Zeitschrifi fUr Literaturwissenscha,fi und Linguistik 38/39, 178-203. (1985): Argumenta. Stichpunkte zu ihrer Begriffsverwendung, Systematik und Ge- schichte in der Rhetoriktheorie des 17. und fruhen 18. Jh., in Kopperschmidt, J. and Schanze, H. (Hg.): Argumente-Argumentation. Miinchen,48-60. Berger, L. (1988): Sprechsprachliche Argumenta- tion und leonie, in Brandt, W. (Hg.): Sprach in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Beitrlige aus dem Institut fUr Germanistische Sprachwissen- schaft der Philipps-Universitlit Marburg. Mar- burg, 184-95. Berk, U. (1979): Konstruktive Argumentationsthe- orie. Stuttgart. Brandt, J. (1986): Argumentative Struktur in Sene- cas TragOdien. HildesheimlZiirichINew York. Breuer, D. and Schanze, H., (Hg.) (1981): Topik. Miinchen. Dei mer, G. (1975): Argumentative Dialoge. Tiibingen. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., eds. (1987): Argumentation (3 vols.). Dordrecht (Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis (PDA) 3, 3A, 3B). Frankenburg, H. (1976): Familienkonflikte und ihre sprachliche Bewiiltigung. FrankfurtlM. Frixen, G. (1987): Struktur und Dynamik natiir- lichsprachlichen Argumentierens, in Papiere ;:,ur Linguistik 36.1. 45-111. Geil3ner, H. (1977): Das handlungstheoretische Interesse an der Rhetorik, oder: Das rhetorische Interesse am gesellschaftlichen Handeln, in Plett, H. F. (Hg.): Rhetorik. Miinchen. 230-51. __ . (Hg.) (1978): Rhetorik. Miinchen. __ . (1980): Oberdas Dialogische im Fiinfsatz. Ein Beitrag zum Sprechdenken und Horverste- hen beim Argumentieren, in Kiihlwein, W. and Raasch. A. (Hg.): Sprache und Verstehen. Bd. I. Tiibingen, 32-42. ___ . (1981): Sprechwissenschaft. Theorie der miindlichen Kommunikation. KonigsteinITs. __ . (1987): Rhetorical Communication as Argumentation, in: van Eemeren, E H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3,111-19. Gerhardus, D .. Kledzig, S. M .• and Reitzig, G. H. (1975): Schliissiges Argumentieren. Gottingen. Gethmann, C. F. (Hg.) (1980): Theorie des wissen- schaftlichen Argumentierens. FrankfurtiM. G6ttert, K. H. (1978): Argumentation. Tiibingen. Grewendorf, G. (1975): Argumentation und Inter- pretation. Kronberg. __ . (1980): Argumentation in der Sprachwis- senschaft, in: Zeitschrift fur Uteraturwissen- schaft und Unguistik 38/39, 129-51. Gutenberg, N. (Hg.) (1984): Horen und Beurteilen. FrankfurtlM. (1987): Argumentation and Dialectical Logic, in van Eemeren et al. (eds.): PDA 3A, 397-403. Habermas, J. (1971): Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompe- tenz, in Habermas, J. and Luhmann, N.: Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. FrankfurtlM, 10 1-41. __ . (1973): Wahrheitstheorien, in Fahrenbach, H. (Hg.): Wirklichheit und Reflexion. Fest- schrift Schulz. Pfullingen, 211-65. (1988): Theorie des kommunikativen Han- deZ,ls. 2 Bde. FrankfurtlM. Heidrich, C. H. (1982): Montague-Grammars for Argumentative Dialogues, in Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L. (eds.): Argumentation. Approaches to Theory Formation. Amsterdam, 191-227. Heringer, H. J., 6hlschHiger, G., Strecker, B. and Wimmer, R. (1977): Einfiihrung in die prak- tische Semantik. Heidelberg. Holik, H. (1988): Argumentieren als Typ sprach- lich-kommunikativen Handelns, in Arbeits- berichte und wissenschaftliche Studien 132, Halle 3-26. Huth, L. (1975): Argumentationstheorie und Text- analyse, in Der Deutschunterricht 27, 80-111. Jamison, R. and Dyck, J. (1983): Rhetorik-Topik- Argumentation. Bibliographie zur Redelehre und Rhetorikforschung im deutschsprachigen Raum 1945 bis 1979180. Stuttgart. Jens, W. (1983): Von deutscher Rede. Miinchen. Kamiah, W. and Lorenzen, P. (1967): Logische Propiideutik. Mannheim. Kalivoda, G. (1986): Parlamemarische Rhetorik und Argumentation. FrankfurtlM. Kienpointner, M. (1983): Argumentationsanalyse. Innsbruck. __ . (1987): Towards a Typology of Argumen- tative Schemes, in van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3, 275-87. __ . (1992): Alltagslogik. Stuttgart. Argumentation in Germany and Austria 135 (in press): How to Classify Arguments, in van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A. (eds.): Proceedings of the Second ISSA International Conference on Argumentation. Klein, J. (1987): Die konklusiven Sprechhandlung- en. Tiibingen. Klein, W. (1980): Argumentation und Argument, in Zeitschrift fur Uteraturwissenschaft und Unguistik 38/39, 9-57. Kopperschmidt, J. (1975): Pro und Contra im Fern- sehen, in Der Deutschunterricht 27,42-62. __ . (I976a): Allgemeine Rhetorik. Stuttgart. __ . (I 976b): Methode statt Appell. Versuch einer Argumentationsanalyse, in Der Deut- schunterricht 28,37-58. __ . (1977): Von der Kritik der Rhetorik zur kri- tischen Rhetorik, in Plett, H. F. (Hg.): Rhetorik. Mtinchen,213-29. __ . (1980): Argumentation. Stuttgart. __ . (1987): The Function of Argumentation: A Pragmatic Approach, in van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3, 179-88. __ . (l989a): Methodik der Argumentatiollsan- alyse. Stuttgart. (1989b): 6ffentliche Rede in Deutschland, Muttersprache 99, 213-30. __ . (1990a): Gibt es Kriterien politischer Rhetorik? Versuch einer Antwort, in Diskus- sion Deutsch 115,479-501. __ . (Hg.) (I 990b ): Rhetorik. Bd. 1,' Rhetorik als Texttheorie. Darmstadt. __ . (Hg.) (1991): Rhetorik. Bd. 2: Wirkungsge- schichte der Rhetorik. Darmstadt. Kopperschmidt, J. and Schanze, H. (Hg.) (1985): Argumente-Argumentation. Munchen. Lang, E. (1976): Erkliirungstexte, in Danes, F. and Viehweger, D. (Hg.): Probleme der Textgram- matik. Berlin, 147-82. Lorenz, K. (1982): On the Criteria for the Choice of Rules of Dialogic Logic, in Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L. (eds.): Argumentation. Approaches to Theory Formation. Amsterdam, 145-57. __ . (1987): Meaning Postulates and Rules of Argumentation, in van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3, 65-71. Lorenzen, P. and Schwemmer O. (1978): Dialo- gische Logik. Darmstadt. Lumer, Chr. (1988): The Disputation: A Special Type of Cooperative Argumentative Dialogue, in: Argumentation 2, 447 -64. Metzing, D. (1975): Formen kommunikationswissen- sehafllicher Argumelltationsanalyse. Hamburg. 136 Manfred Kienpointner Michel, G. (Hg.) (1985): Grundfragen der Kommunikationsbefiihigung. Leipzig. Neumann, U. (1986): Juristische Argumentations- lehre. Darmstadt. OhlschHiger, G. (1979): Linguistische Uberlegungen zu einer Theorie der Argumentation. Tiibingen. __ . (1980): Zum Explizitmachen von Voraus- setzungen beim Argumentieren, in Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 38/39, 152-68. Pasch, R. (1987): lllokutionsstrukturtypen und Typen der Verkntipfung von Inhalten illoku- tiver Handlungen, in Motsch, W. (Hg.): Satz, Text. sprachliche Handlung. Berlin, 119-61. Plett, H. (1975): Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse. Heidelberg. __ . (Hg.) (1977): Rhetorik. Miinchen. Quasthoff. U. (1978): The Uses of Stereotype in Everyday Argument, in Journal of Pragmatics 2,1-48. Richter, G. (1986): Die Sprachwirkung als eine Determinante der Sprachnorm, in von Polenz. P., Erben, 1., and Goossens, 1. (Hg.): Kontroversen. alte und neue. Bd. 4: Sprachnormen - IOsbare und un16sbare Probleme. Ttibingen, 129-35. Rodingen, H. (1977): Pragmatik der juristischen Argumentation. FreiburgIMtinchen. __ . (1981): Rhetorik im Recht: Ortsbestimm- mung und Uberblick, in Rhetorik 2,85-105. Rosengren, I. (1987): Begrtindungen und Folgerungen als kommunikative Handlungen, in Motsch, W. (Hg.): Satz. Text, sprachliche Handlung. Berlin. 179-97. Schanze, Hand Kopperschmidt, J. (Hg.) (1989): Rhetorik und Philosophie. Miinchen. Schecker, M. (Hg.) (1977): Theorie der Argumen- tation. Ttibingen. Schmidt, S. (1977): Argumentationstheoretische Aspekte einer rational en Literaturwissen- schaft, in Schecker, M. (Hg.): Theorie der Argumentation. Ttibingen, 171-200. Schmidt. W. et al. (1981): Funktional-kommunika- tive Sprachbeschreibung. Leipzig. Schwitalla, J. (1976): Zur Einfiihrung in die Argu- mentationstheorie: Begrtindung durch Daten und Begrtindung durch Handlungsziele in der Alltagsargumentation. in Der Deutschunter- richt 28,22-36. __ . (Hg.) (1987 a): Konflikte in Gesprachen. Tiibingen. __ . (l987b): Common Argumentation and Group Identity, in van Eeemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.): PqA 3A, 119-26. Seibert, Th.-M. (1977): Argumentationsbeispiele aus dem Rechtsbereich, in Schecker, M. (Hg.): Theorie der Argumentation. Ttibingen, 313-53. __ . (1981): Topos and Status im Rahmen einer entwickeltenjurlstischen Pragmatik, in Breuer, D. and Schanze, H. (Hg.): Topik. Mtinchen, 80-92. __ . (1987): The Arguments of a Judge. in van Eemeren, F. H. et at. (eds.): PDA 3B, 119-22. Settekom, W. (1977): Pragmatique et rhetorique discursive, in Journal of Pragmatics I, 195-209. Sobota, K. (1990a): Sachlichkeit. Rhetorische Kunst der Juristen. FrankfurtlM. __ . (1990b): System and Flexibility in Law, in Argumentation 5, 275-82. Strecker. B. (1976): Beweisen. Ttibingen. Ueding, G. (Hg.) (1990): Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Niemeyer. Ueding, G. and Steinbrink, B. (1986): GrundrifJ der Rhetoric. Stuttgart. Viehweg, Th. (1974): Topik und Jurisprudenz. Miinchen. Vol zing. P.-L. (1979): Begriinden, Erkliirung, Argumentieren. Heidelberg. __ . (1981): Kinder argumentieren. Die Ontogenese argumentativer Fiihigkeiten. Paderbom. __ . (1987): Some Remarks on the Develop- ment of Argumentation, in van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3A, 187-95. Walther, J. (1990): Philosophisches Argumentieren. Lehr-und Ubungsbuch. FreiburglMtinchen. Wodak, R. et al. (1990): "Wir sind aile unschuldige Tater!": diskurshistorische Studien zum Nach- kriegsantisemitismus. FrankfurtlM. Wohlrapp, H. (1979): Analytischer versus kon- struktiver Wissenschaftsbegriff, in Lorenz, K. (Hg.): Konstruktionen versus Positionen. Bd. 2: Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. Berlin, 348-77. __ . (1987): Toulmin's Theory and the Dynam- ics of Argumentation, in van Eemeren. F. H. et al. (eds.): PDA 3A, 327-35. Wunderlich, D. (1980): Pro und Kontra, in Zeitschrift /iir Linguistik und Literaturwissen- schaft 38/39, 109-27. ZilIig. W. (1982): Bewerten. Sprechakttypen der bewertenden Rede. Ttibingen. MANFRED KIENPOINTNER INSTITUT FUR KLASSISCHE PHILOLOGIE UNIVERSITAT INNSBRUCK A-6020 INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA ::::I