Search results

  • Full text

  • Document type

    • Publication year

  • Organisation

Results: 59
Number of items: 59
  • Open Access
    Andone, C. (2016). Delimiting the burden of proof in political interviews. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 5(1), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.1.04and
  • Open Access
    Andone, C. (2016). Argumentative Patterns in the Political Domain: The Case of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry. Argumentation, 30(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9372-4
  • Open Access
    Andone, C., & Rocci, A. (2016). Argumentation in journalism: Professional practices and the public sphere. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 5(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.1.001in
  • Andone, C. (2015). The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability. In R. Săftoiu, M.-L. Neagu, & S. Măda (Eds.), Persuasive games in political and professional dialogue (pp. 19-38). (Dialogue studies; No. 26). John Benjamins.
  • Andone, C. (2015). [Review of: S.F. Aikin, R.B. Talisse (2014) Why we argue (and how we should): A guide to political disagreement]. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(2), 236-239. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.2.06and
  • Open Access
    Andone, C. (2015). Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability. Argumentation, 29(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2
  • Open Access
    Andone, C. (2015). Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité des politiciens. Argumentation & Analyse du Discours, 15, Article 2021. https://aad.revues.org/2021
  • Andone, C. (2014). [Review of: D. Walton (2013) Methods of argumentation]. History and Philosophy of Logic, 35(3), 304-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2014.894711
  • Open Access
    Andone, C. (2014). Maneuvering with the burden of proof: Confrontational strategies in dealing with political accountability. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0004
  • Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews: analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. (Argumentation in context; No. 5). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5
Page 4 of 6