Paperback : HK$313.00
Interpersonal Arguing is an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of reasons. Topics include frames for understanding the nature of arguing, argument situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and international differences in how people understand interpersonal arguing. This is a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in understanding how people argue with one another.
Dale Hample earned his Ph.D. in communication from the University of Illinois in 1975. He has been conducting research in argumentation and related processes (conflict management, persuasion, and interpersonal communication) since that time. His previous books are Readings in Argumentation (1992; co-edited with William and Pamela Benoit) and Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face (2005). The latter won the 2007 Gerald R. Miller Book Award from the National Communication Association's Interpersonal Communication Division. He has also won or shared research awards from the American Forensic Association four times. He has keynoted argumentation conferences in the U.S., Canada, Chile, and the Netherlands. He is on the communication faculty at the University of Maryland.
Show moreInterpersonal Arguing is an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of reasons. Topics include frames for understanding the nature of arguing, argument situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and international differences in how people understand interpersonal arguing. This is a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in understanding how people argue with one another.
Dale Hample earned his Ph.D. in communication from the University of Illinois in 1975. He has been conducting research in argumentation and related processes (conflict management, persuasion, and interpersonal communication) since that time. His previous books are Readings in Argumentation (1992; co-edited with William and Pamela Benoit) and Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face (2005). The latter won the 2007 Gerald R. Miller Book Award from the National Communication Association's Interpersonal Communication Division. He has also won or shared research awards from the American Forensic Association four times. He has keynoted argumentation conferences in the U.S., Canada, Chile, and the Netherlands. He is on the communication faculty at the University of Maryland.
Show moreAcknowledgements – List of Tables – List of Figures – A Conceptual Inventory – Argument Frames – Argument Situations – Serial Arguments – The Rationality Engine – Relational Dialogues – Arguing and Culture – The Processes of Interpersonal Arguing – Appendix: Instrumentation – Index.
Dale Hample earned his Ph.D. in communication from the University of Illinois in 1975. He has been conducting research in argumentation and related processes (conflict management, persuasion, and interpersonal communication) since that time. His previous books are Readings in Argumentation (1992; co-edited with William and Pamela Benoit) and Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face (2005). The latter won the 2007 Gerald R. Miller Book Award from the National Communication Association’s Interpersonal Communication Division. He has also won or shared research awards from the American Forensic Association four times. He has keynoted argumentation conferences in the U.S., Canada, Chile, and the Netherlands. He is on the communication faculty at the University of Maryland.
“I would argue (pun intended) that Dale Hample’s Interpersonal Arguing is an outstanding book that discusses an evolutionary view of arguing and the prudent necessity for framing arguments. He presents empirical studies as well as situational examples. The appendix of instruments is worthwhile. I particularly was enthralled with the chapters on serial arguing and arguing as a personality trait (think of the current president’s tweets in which conflict is taken personally). The discussion of argument frames is enticing in an age in which some people think that arguments that are not based on scientific research are equally credible (e.g., climate change deniers, believers in conversion therapy). Indeed, as stated in the book: ‘The belief that everyone is entitled to an opinion does not logically imply that all opinions have the same merit, which is an unfortunate impression that some people have (Kuhn, 1991).’ This is a great book with massive applications to everyday relationships, persuasion/marketing appeals, negotiations, campaign consultants, and understanding intergroup conflict.” — James Honeycutt, Professor, Communication Studies, Louisiana State University
|
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
