text:
Argumentation theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be reached through logical reasoning; that is, claims based, soundly or not, on premises. It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.[1]
Argumentation includes deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures.[2] It also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal.[3] This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests—or choose to change them—in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing.
Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.
Contents
[hide]
1 Key components of argumentation
2 Internal structure of arguments
3 Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge
4 Approaches to argumentation in communication and informal logic
5 Kinds of argumentation
5.1 Conversational argumentation
5.2 Mathematical argumentation
5.3 Scientific argumentation
5.4 Interpretive argumentation
5.5 Legal argumentation
5.6 Political argumentation
6 Psychological aspects
7 Theories
7.1 Argument fields
7.2 Stephen E. Toulmin's contributions
7.2.1 An alternative to absolutism and relativism
7.2.2 Components of argument
7.2.3 The evolution of knowledge
7.2.4 Rejection of certainty
7.3 Pragma-dialectics
7.4 Walton's logical argumentation method
8 Artificial intelligence
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Sources
12 Further reading
13 External links
Key components of argumentation[edit]
Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.
Internal structure of arguments[edit]
Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following
a set of assumptions or premises
a method of reasoning or deduction and
a conclusion or point.
An argument has one or more premises and one conclusion.
Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore, it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A second school of argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken on account.
In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method (Douglas Walton). The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures.
Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge[edit]
Argumentation theory had its origins in foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. But argument scholars gradually rejected Aristotle's systematic philosophy and the idealism in Plato and Kant. They questioned and ultimately discarded the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems. The field thus broadened.[4]
Karl R. Wallace's seminal essay, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1963) 44, led many scholars to study "marketplace argumentation" – the ordinary arguments of ordinary people. The seminal essay on marketplace argumentation is Ray Lynn Anderson and C. David Mortensen's "Logic and Marketplace Argumentation" Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150.[5][6] This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge.[7] Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn".
In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge.
Approaches to argumentation in communication and informal logic[edit]
In general, the label "argumentation" is used by communication scholars such as (to name only a few) Wayne E. Brockriede, Douglas Ehninger, Joseph W. Wenzel, Richard Rieke, Gordon Mitchell, Carol Winkler, Eric Gander, Dennis S. Gouran, Daniel J. O'Keefe, Mark Aakhus, Bruce Gronbeck, James Klumpp, G. Thomas Goodnight, Robin Rowland, Dale Hample, C. Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, David Zarefsky, and Charles Arthur Willard, while the term "informal logic" is preferred by philosophers, stemming from University of Windsor philosophers Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. Harald Wohlrapp developed a criterion for validness (Geltung, Gültigkeit) as freedom of objections.
Trudy Govier, Douglas Walton, Michael Gilbert, Harvey Seigal, Michael Scriven, and John Woods (to name only a few) are other prominent authors in this tradition. Over the past thirty years, however, scholars from several disciplines have co-mingled at international conferences such as that hosted by the University of Amsterdam (the Netherlands) and the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Other international conferences are the biannual conference held at Alta, Utah sponsored by the (US) National Communication Association and American Forensics Association and conferences sponsored by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).
Some scholars (such as Ralph H. Johnson) construe the term "argument" narrowly, as exclusively written discourse or even discourse in which all premises are explicit. Others (such as Michael Gilbert) construe the term "argument" broadly, to include spoken and even nonverbal discourse, for instance the degree to which a war memorial or propaganda poster can be said to argue or "make arguments". The philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin has said that an argument is a claim on our attention and belief, a view that would seem to authorize treating, say, propaganda posters as arguments. The dispute between broad and narrow theorists is of long standing and is unlikely to be settled. The views of the majority of argumentation theorists and analysts fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Kinds of argumentation[edit]
Conversational argumentation[edit]
Main articles: Conversation analysis and Discourse analysis
The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversation analysis. Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.[8] It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech.
Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement.
Mathematical argumentation[edit]
Main article: Philosophy of mathematics
The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Logicism in Philosophy of mathematics[citation needed]) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in the end, logical truths. The project was developed by Russell and Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica. If an argument can be cast in the form of sentences in Symbolic Logic, then it can be tested by the application of accepted proof procedures. This has been carried out for Arithmetic using Peano axioms. Be that as it may, an argument in Mathematics, as in any other discipline, can be considered valid only if it can be shown that it cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.
Scientific argumentation[edit]
Main articles: Philosophy of science and Rhetoric of science
Perhaps the most radical statement of the social grounds of scientific knowledge appears in Alan G.Gross's The Rhetoric of Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). Gross holds that science is rhetorical "without remainder",[9] meaning that scientific knowledge itself cannot be seen as an idealized ground of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is produced rhetorically, meaning that it has special epistemic authority only insofar as its communal methods of verification are trustworthy. This thinking represents an almost complete rejection of the foundationalism on which argumentation was first based.
Interpretive argumentation[edit]
Main article: Interpretive discussion
Interpretive argumentation is a dialogical process in which participants explore and/or resolve interpretations often of a text of any medium containing significant ambiguity in meaning.
Interpretive argumentation is pertinent to the humanities, hermeneutics, literary theory, linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, semiotics, analytic philosophy and aesthetics. Topics in conceptual interpretation include aesthetic, judicial, logical and religious interpretation. Topics in scientific interpretation include scientific modeling.
Legal argumentation[edit]
Main articles: Oral argument and Closing argument
Legal arguments are spoken presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer, or parties when representing themselves of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. A closing argument, or summation, is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence.
Political argumentation[edit]
Main article: Political argument
Political arguments are used by academics, media pundits, candidates for political office and government officials. Political arguments are also used by citizens in ordinary interactions to comment about and understand political events.[10] The rationality of the public is a major question in this line of research. Political scientist Samuel L. Popkin coined the expression "low information voters" to describe most voters who know very little about politics or the world in general.
In practice, a "low information voter" may not be aware of legislation that their representative has sponsored in Congress. A low-information voter may base their ballot box decision on a media sound-bite, or a flier received in the mail. It is possible for a media sound-bite or campaign flier to present a political position for the incumbent candidate that completely contradicts the legislative action taken in the Capitol on behalf of the constituents. It may only take a small percentage of the overall voting group who base their decision on the inaccurate information, a voter block of 10 to 12%, to swing an overall election result. When this happens, the constituency at large may have been duped or fooled. Nevertheless, the election result is legal and confirmed. Savvy Political consultants will take advantage of low-information voters and sway their votes with disinformation because it can be easier and sufficiently effective. Fact checkers have come about in recent years to help counter the effects of such campaign tactics.
Psychological aspects[edit]
Psychology has long studied the non-logical aspects of argumentation. For example, studies have shown that simple repetition of an idea is often a more effective method of argumentation than appeals to reason. Propaganda often utilizes repetition.[11] Nazi rhetoric has been studied extensively as, inter alia, a repetition campaign.
Empirical studies of communicator credibility and attractiveness, sometimes labeled charisma, have also been tied closely to empirically-occurring arguments. Such studies bring argumentation within the ambit of persuasion theory and practice.
Some psychologists such as William J. McGuire believe that the syllogism is the basic unit of human reasoning. They have produced a large body of empirical work around McGuire's famous title "A Syllogistic Analysis of Cognitive Relationships". A central line of this way of thinking is that logic is contaminated by psychological variables such as "wishful thinking", in which subjects confound the likelihood of predictions with the desirability of the predictions. People hear what they want to hear and see what they expect to see. If planners want something to happen they see it as likely to happen. If they hope something will not happen, they see it as unlikely to happen. Thus smokers think that they personally will avoid cancer, promiscuous people practice unsafe sex, and teenagers drive recklessly.
Theories[edit]
Argument fields[edit]
Stephen E. Toulmin and Charles Arthur Willard have championed the idea of argument fields, the former drawing upon Ludwig Wittgenstein's notion of language games, (Sprachspiel) the latter drawing from communication and argumentation theory, sociology, political science, and social epistemology. For Toulmin, the term "field" designates discourses within which arguments and factual claims are grounded.[12] For Willard, the term "field" is interchangeable with "community", "audience", or "readership".[13] Along similar lines, G. Thomas Goodnight has studied "spheres" of argument and sparked a large literature created by younger scholars responding to or using his ideas.[14] The general tenor of these field theories is that the premises of arguments take their meaning from social communities.[15]
Field studies might focus on social movements, issue-centered publics (for instance, pro-life versus pro-choice in the abortion dispute), small activist groups, corporate public relations campaigns and issue management, scientific communities and disputes, political campaigns, and intellectual traditions.[16] In the manner of a sociologist, ethnographer, anthropologist, participant-observer, and journalist, the field theorist gathers and reports on real-world human discourses, gathering case studies that might eventually be combined to produce high-order explanations of argumentation processes. This is not a quest for some master language or master theory covering all specifics of human activity. Field theorists are agnostic about the possibility of a single grand theory and skeptical about the usefulness of such a theory. Theirs is a more modest quest for "mid-range" theories that might permit generalizations about families of discourses.
Stephen E. Toulmin's contributions[edit]
By far, the most influential theorist has been Stephen Toulmin, the Cambridge educated philosopher and student of Wittgenstein.[17] What follows below is a sketch of his ideas.
An alternative to absolutism and relativism[edit]
Toulmin has argued that absolutism (represented by theoretical or analytic arguments) has limited practical value. Absolutism is derived from Plato's idealized formal logic, which advocates universal truth; thus absolutists believe that moral issues can be resolved by adhering to a standard set of moral principles, regardless of context. By contrast, Toulmin asserts that many of these so-called standard principles are irrelevant to real situations encountered by human beings in daily life.
To describe his vision of daily life, Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields; in The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin states that some aspects of arguments vary from field to field, and are hence called "field-dependent", while other aspects of argument are the same throughout all fields, and are hence called "field-invariant". The flaw of absolutism, Toulmin believes, lies in its unawareness of the field-dependent aspect of argument; absolutism assumes that all aspects of argument are field invariant.
Toulmin's theories resolve to avoid the defects of absolutism without resorting to relativism: relativism, Toulmin asserted, provides no basis for distinguishing between a moral or immoral argument. In Human Understanding (1972), Toulmin suggests that anthropologists have been tempted to side with relativists because they have noticed the influence of cultural variations on rational arguments; in other words, the anthropologist or relativist overemphasizes the importance of the "field-dependent" aspect of arguments, and becomes unaware of the "field-invariant" elements. In an attempt to provide solutions to the problems of absolutism and relativism, Toulmin attempts throughout his work to develop standards that are neither absolutist nor relativist for assessing the worth of ideas.
Toulmin believes that a good argument can succeed in providing good justification to a claim, which will stand up to criticism and earn a favourable verdict.
Components of argument[edit]
In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
Claim: Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be "I am a British citizen." (1)
Data: The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data "I was born in Bermuda." (2)
Warrant: The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda," to the claim in 1, "I am a British citizen," the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen." (3)
Backing: Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen."
Rebuttal: Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country."
Qualifier: Words or phrases expressing the speaker's degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include "possible," "probably," "impossible," "certainly," "presumably," "as far as the evidence goes," or "necessarily." The claim "I am definitely a British citizen" has a greater degree of force than the claim "I am a British citizen, presumably."
The first three elements "claim", "data", and "warrant" are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad "qualifier", "backing", and "rebuttal" may not be needed in some arguments.
When first proposed, this layout of argumentation is based on legal arguments and intended to be used to analyze the rationality of arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not realize that this layout would be applicable to the field of rhetoric and communication until his works were introduced to rhetoricians by Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger. Only after he published Introduction to Reasoning (1979) were the rhetorical applications of this layout mentioned in his works.
The evolution of knowledge[edit]
Toulmin's Human Understanding (1972) asserts that conceptual change is evolutionary. This book attacks Thomas Kuhn's explanation of conceptual change in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn held that conceptual change is a revolutionary (as opposed to an evolutionary) process in which mutually exclusive paradigms compete to replace one another. Toulmin criticizes the relativist elements in Kuhn's thesis, as he points out that the mutually exclusive paradigms provide no ground for comparison; in other words, Kuhn's thesis has made the relativists' error of overemphasizing the "field variant" while ignoring the "field invariant", or commonality shared by all argumentation or scientific paradigms.
Toulmin proposes an evolutionary model of conceptual change comparable to Darwin's model of biological evolution. On this reasoning, conceptual change involves innovation and selection. Innovation accounts for the appearance of conceptual variations, while selection accounts for the survival and perpetuation of the soundest conceptions. Innovation occurs when the professionals of a particular discipline come to view things differently from their predecessors; selection subjects the innovative concepts to a process of debate and inquiry in what Toulmin considers as a "forum of competitions". The soundest concepts will survive the forum of competition as replacements or revisions of the traditional conceptions.
From the absolutists' point of view, concepts are either valid or invalid regardless of contexts; from a relativists' perspective, one concept is neither better nor worse than a rival concept from a different cultural context. From Toulmin's perspective, the evaluation depends on a process of comparison, which determines whether or not one concept will provide improvement to our explanatory power more so than its rival concepts.
Rejection of certainty[edit]
In Cosmopolis (1990), Toulmin traces the quest for certainty back to Descartes and Hobbes, and lauds Dewey, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Rorty for abandoning that tradition.
Pragma-dialectics[edit]
Main article: Pragma-dialectics
Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics. The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that, if followed, will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions. Frans H. van Eemeren, the late Rob Grootendorst, and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea.
The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given by ten rules for critical discussion, all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion (from Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002, p. 182-183). The theory postulates this as an ideal model, and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact. The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong, that is, when the rules are violated. Any such violation will constitute a fallacy. Albeit not primarily focused on fallacies, pragma-dialectics provides a systematic approach to deal with them in a coherent way.
Walton's logical argumentation method[edit]
Doug Walton developed a distinctive philosophical theory of logical argumentation built around a set of practical methods to help a user identify, analyze and evaluate arguments in everyday conversational discourse and in more structured areas such as debate, law and scientific fields.[18] There are four main components: argumentation schemes,[19] dialogue structures, argument mapping tools, and formal argumentation systems. The method uses the notion of commitment in dialogue as the fundamental tool for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation rather than the notion of belief.[20] Commitments are statements that the agent has expressed or formulated, and has pledged to carry out, or has publicly asserted. According to the commitment model, agents interact with each other in a dialogue in which each takes its turn to contribute speech acts. The dialogue framework uses critical questioning as a way of testing plausible explanations and finding weak points in an argument that raise doubt concerning the acceptability of the argument.
Walton's logical argumentation model takes a different view of proof and justification from that taken in the dominant epistemology in analytical philosophy, which is based on a true belief framework.[citation needed] On the logical argumentation approach, knowledge is seen as form of belief commitment firmly fixed by an argumentation procedure that tests the evidence on both sides, and use standards of proof to determine whether a proposition qualifies as knowledge. On this evidence-based approach, scientific knowledge must be seen as defeasible.
Artificial intelligence[edit]
See also: Argument mapping and Argumentation framework
Efforts have been made within the field of artificial intelligence to perform and analyze the act of argumentation with computers. Argumentation has been used to provide a proof-theoretic semantics for non-monotonic logic, starting with the influential work of Dung (1995). Computational argumentation systems have found particular application in domains where formal logic and classical decision theory are unable to capture the richness of reasoning, domains such as law and medicine. In Elements of Argumentation, Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter introduce techniques for formalizing deductive argumentation in artificial intelligence, emphasizing emerging formalizations for practical argumentation.[21]
Within Computer Science, the ArgMAS workshop series (Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems), the CMNA workshop series,[22] and now the COMMA Conference,[23] are regular annual events attracting participants from every continent. The journal Argument & Computation[24] is dedicated to exploring the intersection between argumentation and computer science.
See also[edit]
Psychology portal
A fortiori argument
Argument
Argumentation ethics
Criticism
Defeasible reasoning
Discourse ethics
Essentially contested concept
Forensics
Legal theory
Logic and dialectic
Logic of argumentation
Negotiation theory
Pars destruens/pars construens
Public sphere
Rationality
Rhetoric
Rogerian argument
Social engineering (political science)
Social psychology
Sophistry
Source criticism
Straight and Crooked Thinking
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Frans H. Van Eemeran, Rob Grootendorst (2004). "A Systematic Theory of Argumentation" (PDF). Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Philosophy: 12. ISBN 0-521-83075-3 (hard). ISBN 0-521-53772-X (soft).
Jump up ^ Jory, Constanza Ihnen (May 2016). "Negotiation and deliberation: grasping the difference". Argumentation. 30 (2): 145–165 [146]. doi:10.1007/s10503-014-9343-1.
Jump up ^ van Eemeren, Frans H.; Garssen, Bart; Krabbe, Erik C. W.; Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca; Verheij, Bart; Wagemans, Jean H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. New York: Springer Verlag. pp. 65–66. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5. ISBN 9789048194728. OCLC 871004444. At the start of Topics VIII.5, Aristotle distinguishes three types of dialogue by their different goals: (1) the truly dialectical debate, which is concerned with training (gumnasia), with critical examination (peira), or with inquiry (skepsis); (2) the didactic discussion, concerned with teaching; and (3) the competitive (eristic, contentious) type of debate in which winning is the only concern.
Jump up ^ Bruce Gronbeck. "From Argument to Argumentation: Fifteen Years of Identity Crisis." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
Jump up ^ See Joseph W. Wenzel "Perspectives on Argument." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
Jump up ^ David Zarefsky. "Product, Process, or Point of View? Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, ed.s Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
Jump up ^ See Ray E. McKerrow. "Argument Communities: A Quest for Distinctions."
Jump up ^ Psathas, George (1995): Conversation Analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage Sacks, Harvey. (1995). Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-55786-705-4. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simple systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ten Have, Paul (1999): Doing Conversation Analysis. A Practical Guide, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jump up ^ Gross, Alan (1990). The Rhetoric of Science. Harvard University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0674768734.
Jump up ^ Michael McGee. "The 'Ideograph' as a Unit of Analysis in Political Argument." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, eds. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980.
Jump up ^ Jacques Ellul, Propaganda, Vintage, 1973, ISBN 0-394-71874-7 ISBN 978-0394718743.
Jump up ^ Stephen E. Toulmin. The uses of argument. 1959.
Jump up ^ Charles Arthur Willard. "Some Questions About Toulmin's View of Argument Fields." Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell, eds. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. 1980. "Field Theory: A Cartesian Meditation." George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes, eds. Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation.
Jump up ^ G. T. Goodnight, "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument." Journal of the American Forensics Association. (1982) 18:214-227.
Jump up ^ Bruce E. Gronbeck. "Sociocultural Notions of Argument Fields: A Primer." George Ziegelmueller and Jack Rhodes, eds. Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation. (1981) 1-20.
Jump up ^ Robert Rowland, "Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification." Argumentation. vol. 22 Number 2 (2008) 235-250.
Jump up ^ Loui, Ronald P. (2006). "A Citation-Based Reflection on Toulmin and Argument". In Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart. Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer Netherlands. pp. 31–38. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_3. ISBN 978-1-4020-4937-8. Retrieved 2010-06-25. Toulmin's 1958 work is essential in the field of argumentation
Jump up ^ Walton, Douglas (2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ Walton, Douglas; Reed, Chris; Macagno, Fabrizio (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jump up ^ Walton, Douglas; Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: SUNY Press.
Jump up ^ P. Besnard & A. Hunter, "Elements of Argumentation." MIT Press, 2008. See also: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-06-04. Retrieved 2012-02-05. [non-primary source needed]
Jump up ^ Computational Models of Natural Argument
Jump up ^ Computational Models of Argument
Jump up ^ Journal of Argument & Computation Archived 2012-02-21 at the Wayback Machine.
Sources[edit]
J. Robert Cox and Charles Arthur Willard, eds. Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research 1982.
Dung, P. M. "On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games." Artificial Intelligence, 77: 321-357 (1995).
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F., "An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning", Artificial Intelligence 93(1-2) 63-101 (1997).
Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. "Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation." Artificial Intelligence. 170(2), 114-159 (2006).
Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse 1993.
Frans Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialected approach. 2004.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, F. et al. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richard H. Gaskins Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse. Yale University Press. 1993.
Michael A. Gilbert Coalescent Argumentation 1997.
Trudy Govier, Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. 1987.
Dale Hample. (1979). "Predicting belief and belief change using a cognitive theory of argument and evidence." Communication Monographs. 46, 142-146.
Dale Hample. (1978). "Are attitudes arguable?" Journal of Value Inquiry. 12, 311-312.
Dale Hample. (1978). "Predicting immediate belief change and adherence to argument claims." Communication Monographs, 45, 219-228.
Dale Hample & Judy Hample. (1978). "Evidence credibility." Debate Issues. 12, 4-5.
Dale Hample. (1977). "Testing a model of value argument and evidence." Communication Monographs. 14, 106-120.
Dale Hample. (1977). "The Toulmin model and the syllogism." Journal of the American Forensic Association. 14, 1-9.
Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument2nd ed. 1988.
Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, "Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. LXVI, 251-265.
Ralph H. Johnson. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. "Logical Self-Defense", IDEA, 2006. First published, McGraw Hill Ryerson, Toronto, ON, 1997, 1983, 1993. Reprinted, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 1994.
Ralph Johnson. and Blair, J. Anthony (1987), "The Current State of Informal Logic", Informal Logic, 9(2–3), 147–151.
Ralph H. Johnson. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
Ralph H. Johnson. (1999). The relation between formal and informal logic. Argumentation, 13(3) 265-74.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. A. (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. US Edition. (2006). New York: Idebate Press.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. Anthony. (1987). The current state of informal logic. Informal Logic 9, 147-51.
Ralph H. Johnson. & Blair, J. Anthony. (1996). Informal logic and critical thinking. In F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. (pp. 383–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Ralph H. Johnson, Ralph. H. & Blair, J. Anthony. (2000). "Informal logic: An overview." Informal Logic. 20(2): 93-99.
Ralph H. Johnson, Ralph. H. & Blair, J. Anthony. (2002). Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic. In D. Gabbay, R. H. Johnson, H.-J. Ohlbach and J. Woods (Eds.). Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: The turn towards the practical. (pp. 339–396). Elsivier: North Holland.
Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, 1970.
Stephen Toulmin. The uses of argument. 1959.
Stephen Toulmin. The Place of Reason in Ethics. 1964.
Stephen Toulmin. Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. 1972.
Stephen Toulmin. Cosmopolis. 1993.
Douglas N. Walton, The Place of Emotion in Argument. 1992.
Joseph W. Wenzel 1990 Three perspectives on argumentation. In R Trapp and J Scheutz, (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honour of Wayne Brockreide. 9-26 Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL
John Woods. (1980). What is informal logic? In J.A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Informal Logic: The First International Symposium .(pp. 57–68). Point Reyes, CA: Edgepress.
John Woods. (2000). How Philosophical is Informal Logic? Informal Logic. 20(2): 139-167. 2000
Charles Arthur Willard Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press. 1996.
Charles Arthur Willard, A Theory of Argumentation. University of Alabama Press. 1989.
Charles Arthur Willard, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of KnowledgeUniversity of Alabama Press. 1982.
Harald Wohlrapp. Der Begriff des Arguments. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glaube, Subjektivität und Vernunft. Würzburg: Königshausen u. Neumann, 2008 ISBN 978-3-8260-3820-4
Further reading[edit]
Flagship journals:
Argumentation
Informal Logic
Argumentation and Advocacy (formerly Journal of the American Forensic Association)
Social Epistemology
Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology
Journal of Argument and Computation
External links[edit]
This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
"Argumentation theory", Universiteit Utrecht (in Dutch)
"Argumentation Theory", Universiteit Twente (in Dutch)
L'Argumentation: Introduction à l'étude du discours (in French) Free on-line book by Mariana Tutescu previously published in 1998 as ISBN 973-575-248-4
Argumentum.ch, E-course of Argumentation Theory for the Human and Social Sciences
[show]
v
t
e
Logic
Outline
History
Fields
Argumentation theory
Axiology
Critical thinking
Logic in computer science
Mathematical logic
Metalogic
Metamathematics
Non-classical logic
Philosophical logic
Philosophy of logic
Set theory
Foundations
Abduction
Analytic and synthetic propositions
Antinomy
A priori and a posteriori
Deduction
Definition
Description
Induction
Inference
Logical form
Logical consequence
Logical truth
Name
Necessity and sufficiency
Meaning
Paradox
Possible world
Presupposition
Probability
Reason
Reference
Semantics
Statement
Strict implication
Substitution
Syntax
Truth
Validity
Lists
topics
Mathematical logic
Boolean algebra
Set theory
other
Logicians
Rules of inference
Paradoxes
Fallacies
Logic symbols
Portal
Category
WikiProject (talk)
changes
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argumentation_theory&oldid=810132684"
Categories:
Debating
Arguments
Logic
Legal reasoning
Social epistemology
Hidden categories:
All pages needing factual verification
Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from March 2016
Webarchive template wayback links
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2014
Articles with unsourced statements from October 2015
Wikipedia external links cleanup from May 2017
Wikipedia spam cleanup from May 2017
Articles with Dutch-language external links
Articles with French-language external links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
עברית
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Русиньскый
Русский
کوردی
Українська
Edit links
This page was last edited on 13 November 2017, at 14:44.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: b

value: /wiki/Reasoning mw-redirect Reasoning

tag: p

value: Edit section: Key components of argumentation

value:
/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
mw-redirect
Philosophical burden of proof

value: Edit section: Internal structure of arguments

value: Edit section: Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge

value:
/wiki/Speech_acts
mw-redirect
Speech acts

value:
/wiki/Sociology_of_science
mw-redirect
Sociology of science

value: Edit section: Approaches to argumentation in communication and informal logic

value: International Society for the Study of Argumentation (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/American_Forensics_Association
mw-redirect
American Forensics Association

value: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (page does not exist)

value: Edit section: Conversational argumentation

value: Edit section: Mathematical argumentation

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2014)

value:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

value: Edit section: Interpretive argumentation

value:
/wiki/Logical_interpretation
mw-redirect
Logical interpretation

value:
/wiki/Religious_interpretation
mw-redirect
Religious interpretation

value:
/wiki/Scientific_modeling
mw-redirect
Scientific modeling

value:
/wiki/Oral_argument
mw-redirect
Oral argument

value:
/wiki/Fact_checker
mw-redirect
Fact checker

value: Edit section: Stephen E. Toulmin's contributions

value: Edit section: An alternative to absolutism and relativism

value:
/wiki/Toulmin_Model_of_Argument
mw-redirect
Toulmin Model of Argument

value: Edit section: The evolution of knowledge

value: Edit section: Walton's logical argumentation method

value: This claim needs a citation from Walton's work, preferably the earliest work in which he proposed this distinction versus the dominant epistemology in analytical philosophy. (October 2015)

value:
/wiki/Argument_mapping
mw-redirect
Argument mapping

value: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

value: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

value:
/wiki/A_fortiori_argument
mw-redirect
A fortiori argument

value:
/wiki/Legal_theory
mw-redirect
Legal theory

value: -moz-column-width: 20em; -webkit-column-width: 20em; column-width: 20em;

value:
/wiki/Springer_Verlag
mw-redirect
Springer Verlag

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/871004444

value: This claim needs references to reliable secondary sources. (March 2016)

value: noprint Inline-Template noprint Template-Fact

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.cmna.info

value:
nofollow
http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~comma/
external text

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc

value:
/wiki/Chaim_Perelman
mw-redirect
Chaim Perelman

value:
/wiki/Douglas_Neil_Walton
mw-redirect
Douglas Neil Walton

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-external_links

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.argumentum.ch

value: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

value: Category:All pages needing factual verification

value: Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from March 2016

value: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

value: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2014

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2015

value: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup from May 2017

value: Category:Wikipedia spam cleanup from May 2017

value: Category:Articles with Dutch-language external links

value: Category:Articles with French-language external links

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Argumentation_theory
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: نظرية الحجاج – Arabic

value: Аргументация – Bulgarian

value: ארגומנטציה – Hebrew

value: Арґументація – Rusyn

value: Теория аргументации – Russian

value: بیانووھێنانەوە – Central Kurdish

value: Аргументація – Ukrainian

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Argumentation_theory rootpage-Argumentation_theory skin-vector action-view


text:
I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me"
Single by Merle Haggard
from the album I Love Dixie Blues
B-side
"I Forget You Every Day"
Released
December 4, 1972
Format
7"
Genre
Country
Length
2:45
Label
Capitol
Songwriter(s)
Merle Haggard
Producer(s)
Ken Nelson
Fuzzy Owen
Merle Haggard singles chronology
"It's Not Love (But It's Not Bad)"
(1972) "I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me"
(1972) "The Emptiest Arms in the World"
(1973)
"It's Not Love (But It's Not Bad)"
(1972) "I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me"
(1972) "The Emptiest Arms in the World"
(1973)
"I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me" is a song written and recorded by the American country music artist Merle Haggard. It was released in December 1972 as the first single from the album I Love Dixie Blues. "I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me" was Haggard's fourteenth number one on the U.S. country singles chart. It was number one for a single week and spent a total of thirteen weeks on the chart.[1]
Chart performance[edit]
Chart (1972–1973)
Peak
position
US Hot Country Songs (Billboard)[2] 1
Canadian RPM Country Tracks 1
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Whitburn, Joel (2004). The Billboard Book Of Top 40 Country Hits: 1944-2006, Second edition. Record Research. p. 147.
Jump up ^ "Merle Haggard Chart History (Hot Country Songs)". Billboard.
External links[edit]
Lyrics of this song at MetroLyrics
Preceded by
"She Needs Someone to Hold Her (When She Cries)"
by Conway Twitty Billboard Hot Country Singles
number-one single
February 17, 1973 Succeeded by
"Rated "X""
by Loretta Lynn
Preceded by
"Danny's Song"
by Anne Murray RPM Country Tracks
number-one single
February 3, 1973
[hide]
v
t
e
Merle Haggard
The Strangers
Roy Nichols
Norman Hamlet
Biff Adam
Dennis Hromek
Bobby Wayne
Marcia Nichols
Eddie Burris
George French
Jerry Ward
Studio albums
Strangers
Swinging Doors
I'm a Lonesome Fugitive
Branded Man
Sing Me Back Home
The Legend of Bonnie & Clyde
Mama Tried
Pride in What I Am
Same Train, A Different Time
A Portrait of Merle Haggard
A Tribute to the Best Damn Fiddle Player in the World (or, My Salute to Bob Wills)
Hag
Someday We'll Look Back
Let Me Tell You About a Song
It's Not Love (But It's Not Bad)
If We Make It Through December
Merle Haggard Presents His 30th Album
Keep Movin' On
It's All in the Movies
My Love Affair with Trains
The Roots of My Raising
Ramblin' Fever
A Working Man Can't Get Nowhere Today
My Farewell to Elvis
I'm Always on a Mountain When I Fall
Serving 190 Proof
The Way I Am
Back to the Barrooms
Big City
Going Where the Lonely Go
That's the Way Love Goes
It's All in the Game
Kern River
Out Among the Stars
A Friend In California
Chill Factor
5:01 Blues
Blue Jungle
1994
1996
If I Could Only Fly
Roots, Volume 1
The Peer Sessions
Haggard Like Never Before
Unforgettable
Chicago Wind
The Bluegrass Sessions
I Am What I Am
Working in Tennessee
Live albums
Okie from Muskogee
The Fightin' Side of Me
I Love Dixie Blues
Rainbow Stew Live at Anaheim Stadium
The Epic Collection (Recorded Live)
Amber Waves of Grain
Motorcycle Cowboy: Live at Billy Bob's Texas
Ol' Country Singer
Live from Austin, TX
Live from Austin, TX '78
Gospel albums
The Land of Many Churches
Songs for the Mama That Tried
Cabin in the Hills
Two Old Friends (with Albert E. Brumley, Jr.)
Holiday albums
Merle Haggard's Christmas Present
Goin' Home for Christmas
Pancho, Lefty and Rudolph (with Willie Nelson)
I Wish I Was Santa Claus
The Strangers albums
Instrumental Sounds of Merle Haggard's Strangers
Introducing My Friends The Strangers
Getting to Know Merle Haggard's Strangers
Honky Tonkin'
Totally Instrumental (With One Exception...)
Singles
1960s
"Sing a Sad Song"
"Sam Hill"
"(My Friends Are Gonna Be) Strangers"
"I'm Gonna Break Every Heart I Can"
"Swinging Doors"
"The Bottle Let Me Down"
"The Fugitive"
"I Threw Away the Rose"
"Branded Man"
"Sing Me Back Home"
"The Legend of Bonnie & Clyde"
"Mama Tried"
"I Take a Lot of Pride in What I Am"
"Hungry Eyes"
"Workin' Man Blues"
"Okie from Muskogee"
1970s
"The Fightin' Side of Me"
"Street Singer"
"Jesus, Take a Hold"
"I Can't Be Myself"
"Soldier's Last Letter"
"Someday We'll Look Back"
"Daddy Frank (The Guitar Man)"
"Carolyn"
"Grandma Harp"
"It's Not Love (But It's Not Bad)"
"I Wonder If They Ever Think of Me"
"The Emptiest Arms in the World"
"Everybody's Had the Blues"
"If We Make It Through December"
"Things Aren't Funny Anymore"
"Old Man from the Mountain"
"Kentucky Gambler"
"Always Wanting You"
"Movin' On"
"It's All in the Movies"
"The Roots of My Raising"
"Here Comes the Freedom Train"
"Cherokee Maiden"
"If We're Not Back in Love by Monday"
"Ramblin' Fever"
"A Working Man Can't Get Nowhere Today"
"From Graceland to the Promised Land"
"Running Kind"
"I'm Always on a Mountain When I Fall"
"It's Been a Great Afternoon"
"The Way It Was in '51"
"Red Bandana"
"My Own Kind of Hat"
1980s – 1990s
"The Way I Am"
"Misery and Gin"
"I Think I'll Just Stay Here and Drink"
"Leonard"
"Rainbow Stew"
"My Favorite Memory"
"Big City"
"Dealing with the Devil"
"Are the Good Times Really Over (I Wish a Buck Was Still Silver)"
"Going Where the Lonely Go"
"You Take Me for Granted"
"What Am I Gonna Do (With the Rest of My Life)"
"It's All in the Game"
"That's the Way Love Goes"
"Someday When Things Are Good"
"Let's Chase Each Other Around the Room"
"A Place to Fall Apart"
"Make-Up and Faded Blue Jeans"
"Kern River"
"Amber Waves of Grain"
"American Waltz"
"I Had a Beautiful Time"
"A Friend in California"
"Out Among the Stars"
"Almost Persuaded"
"Twinkle, Twinkle Lucky Star"
"Chill Factor"
"We Never Touch at All"
"You Babe"
"5:01 Blues"
"A Better Love Next Time"
"If You Want to Be My Woman"
"Broken Friend"
"When It Rains It Pours"
"In My Next Life"
Collaborations
Albums
Just Between the Two of Us (with Bonnie Owens)
A Taste of Yesterday's Wine (with George Jones)
Pancho & Lefty (with Willie Nelson)
Heart to Heart (with Leona Williams)
Walking the Line (with George Jones and Willie Nelson)
Seashores of Old Mexico (with Willie Nelson)
Kickin' Out the Footlights...Again (with George Jones)
Last of the Breed (with Willie Nelson and Ray Price)
Django & Jimmie (with Willie Nelson)
Singles
"Just Between the Two of Us" (with Bonnie Owens)
"The Bull and the Beaver" with Leona Williams
"Bar Room Buddies" (with Clint Eastwood)
"Yesterday's Wine" (with George Jones)
"C.C. Waterback" (with George Jones)
"Reasons to Quit" (with Willie Nelson)
"Pancho and Lefty" (with Willie Nelson)
"We're Strangers Again" (with Leona Williams)
"If I Could Only Fly" (with Willie Nelson)
"That's the Way Love Goes" with (Jewel)
"Wreck on the Highway" (with Chester Smith)
Guest appearances
"Street Singer" (by The Strangers)
"Willie" (by Hank Cochran)
"Walking the Floor Over You" (by Ernest Tubb)
"I Can't Hold Myself in Line" (by Johnny Paycheck)
"Lefty" (by David Frizzell)
"Same Old Train" (from Tribute to Tradition)
"Politically Uncorrect" (by Gretchen Wilson)
"I Think I'll Just Stay Here and Drink" (by Hank Williams, Jr.)
Compilations
The Best of Merle Haggard
Close-Up
The Best of the Best of Merle Haggard
Songs I'll Always Sing
Eleven Winners
The Way It Was in '51
Merle Haggard's Greatest Hits
His Epic Hits: The First 11 (To Be Continued...)
His Best
His Greatest and His Best
The Lonesome Fugitive
Untamed Hawk
Vintage Collections
Down Every Road 1962–1994
Yesterday's Wine 1981-1988
A&E Biography
16 Biggest Hits
For the Record: 43 Legendary Hits
Merle Haggard's Train Whistle Blues
20 Greatest Hits
David Allan Coe Presents
40 #1 Hits
The Essential Merle Haggard: The Epic Years
Hag: The Best of Merle Haggard
Related articles
Discography
Marty Haggard
Noel Haggard
Bonnie Owens
Leona Williams
Mama's Hungry Eyes: A Tribute to Merle Haggard
"Untanglin' My Mind"
"The Seashores of Old Mexico"
This 1970s country song–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
v
t
e
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Wonder_If_They_Ever_Think_of_Me&oldid=758503335"
Categories:
1972 singles
1972 songs
Merle Haggard songs
Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles
RPM Country Tracks number-one singles
Songs written by Merle Haggard
Song recordings produced by Ken Nelson (United States record producer)
Capitol Records singles
1970s country song stubs
Hidden categories:
Articles with hAudio microformats
Singlechart usages for Billboardcountrysongs
Singlechart called without song
All stub articles
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 5 January 2017, at 20:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

tag: div

attr: id class

value: mw-page-base noprint

key: html

type: local

value: mw-head-base noprint

tag: a

attr: id class lang

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: th

attr: colspan class style

tag: tr

attr: href title

tag: i

tag: span

tag: td

value:
/wiki/7-inch_single
mw-redirect
7-inch single

value: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding: .2em .1em .2em 0;

value: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding:.2em .1em;

value: width: 33%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top; padding: .2em 0 .2em .1em;

value: background: transparent; width: 100%; min-width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse;

value: width:33%; padding:.2em .1em .2em 0; text-align: center;

value: width:33%; padding:.2em .1em; text-align: center;

value: width:33%; padding:.2em 0 .2em .1em; text-align: center;

value:
left
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

value:
center
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value:
Merle_Haggard
fn
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

value:
/wiki/The_Strangers_(country_band)
mw-redirect
The Strangers (country band)

value:
navbox-abovebelow
2
background: #EEEEEE;

value:
row
navbox-group
width:1%;background: #EEEEEE;

value:
/wiki/Same_Train,_A_Different_Time
mw-redirect
Same Train, A Different Time

value: That's the Way Love Goes (Merle Haggard album)

value: It's All in the Game (Merle Haggard album)

value: Out Among the Stars (Merle Haggard album)

value:
/wiki/A_Friend_In_California
mw-redirect
A Friend In California

value: The Bluegrass Sessions (Merle Haggard album)

value: width:100%;padding:0px;background: rgb(238, 238, 238);

value: A Working Man Can't Get Nowhere Today (song)

value: I'm Always on a Mountain When I Fall (song)

value: That's the Way Love Goes (Johnny Rodriguez song)

value: Walking the Line (Merle Haggard, George Jones and Willie Nelson album)

value:
/wiki/Hank_Williams,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Hank Williams, Jr.

value: Songs I'll Always Sing (Merle Haggard album)

value: nowraplinks vcard hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

attr: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: position: absolute; right: 15px; display: none;

value:
metadata plainlinks stub
presentation
background:transparent

value: Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles

value: Category:RPM Country Tracks number-one singles

value: Category:Song recordings produced by Ken Nelson (United States record producer)

value: Category:Articles with hAudio microformats

value: Category:Singlechart usages for Billboardcountrysongs

value: Category:Singlechart called without song

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/I_Wonder_If_They_Ever_Think_of_Me
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-I_Wonder_If_They_Ever_Think_of_Me rootpage-I_Wonder_If_They_Ever_Think_of_Me skin-vector action-view