ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Arguments in hypertext: a rhetorical approach
Full text PdfPdf (67 KB)
Source Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia archive
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia table of contents
San Antonio, Texas, United States
Pages: 85 - 91  
Year of Publication: 2000
ISBN:1-58113-227-1
Author
Locke M. Carter  Department of English, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX
Sponsors
SIGMOD: ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data
SIGIR: ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval
SIGLINK: Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web
SIGWEB: ACM Special Interest Group on Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 101,   Citation Count: 7
Additional Information:

references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/336296.336332
What is a DOI?

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
Carter, L. Arguments in Hypertext: Order and Structure in Non-Sequential Essays. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas. Ann Arbor, UMI. # AAG 9824882.
 
5
Charney, D. "The Effect of Hypertext on Processes of Reading and Writing." Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology. Ed. Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. New York: Modern Language Association, 1994. 238-63.
6
 
7
Dee-Lucas, D. "Effects of Strategic Overview on Study Strategies and Text Representations for Instructional Hypertext." Hypertext and Cognition. Ed. Rouet, J.F.,et al. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1996.73-107.
 
8
Dillon, A., McKnight, C. & Richardson, J. "Spacethe Final Chapter, or Why Physical Representations are not Semantic Intentions." Hypertext: A Psychological Perspective. Ed. Dillon, A., McKnight, C. & Richardson, J. New York: Horwood, 1993.169-91.
 
9
Fahnestock, J. R., and Secor, M. J. "Teaching Argument: A Theory of Types." College Composition and Communication 34.1 (1983): 20-30.
 
10
Fahnestock, J. R., and Secor, M. J. A Rhetoric of Argument. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
 
11
Fulkerson, R. "Technical Logic, Comp-Logic, and the Teaching of Writing." College Communication and Composition 39.4 (1988): 436-52.
 
12
Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Trans. McCarthy, T. Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon, 1984.
 
13
Hamblin, C.L. Fallacies. London: Metheun, 1970.
 
14
Hovland, C. I. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale UP, 1957.
 
15
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, A. J. Introduction. Informal Logic: First International Symposium. Ed. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, A. J. Inverness, CA: Edge, 1978.1-25.
 
16
Kinneavy, J. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1980.
 
17
Kolb, D. Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy. Diskette. Watertown, MA: Eastgate Systems, 1994.
18
 
19
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago UP, 1980.
 
20
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago UP, 1989.
 
21
 
22
23
 
24
 
25
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. The New Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame, 1969.
 
26
 
27
Rieke, R. D., & Stutman, R. K. Communication in Legal Advocacy. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 1990.
 
28
 
29
Toulmin, S. E. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958.
 
30
 
31
Turner, M. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton UP, 1991.