-Explores the genealogical connections between John Perry’s Critical Referentialism and Peirce’s Final Typology of Signs, and suggests a Peircian development to Perry’s theory. (Draft available here). 

•  “Peirce’s Final Account of Signs and Contemporary Philosophy of Language” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 44:1. (2008)

-Uses Peirce’s Final Sign Typology and draws comparisons with the concepts employed by contemporary philosophers of language. The numerous parallels are explored and the important differences emphasised. (Draft available here).

• “Arguing About Muslims: (Un)reasonable Argument in Letters to the Editor.” Text & Talk. (with J.E. Richardson). (2007)

-Analyses a sample of broad-sheet Newspaper reader’s letters on Muslims and argument, and proposes that this approach reveals inherent biases and concealed racism. (Draft available here).

•  “Arguing with Asperger Syndrome”. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (Amsterdam: Sic Sat). (with J.E. Richardson and C. Blackmore). (2007)

-Outlines a research programme examining normative rules of argumentation in light of Asperger Syndrome. Proposes that such pathologies shed light on our standard practices of argument, and that normative rules may be a therapeutic tool for handling Asperger’s.

• “There’s no place like ‘here’ and no time like ‘now’”. American Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 43. No. 3. 271-80. (2006)

-Argues that developments to Kaplan’s semantics for indexicals which introduce methods for determining the contexts of interpretation cannot explain away non-locational uses of ‘here’ and non-temporal uses of ‘now’ without undermining their own accounts. (available here)

• “‘You’re being Unreasonable’: Prior & Passing Theories of Critical Discussion”.  Argumentation. Vol.20 No2. 149-166 (with J.E. Richardson). (2006).

-Uses Donald Davidson’s distinction between passing and prior theories to explain contextual variation in speakers’ interpretations of the normative standards for rational argumentation. (Draft available here).

 

• “Peirce on the Index and Indexical Reference”. The Transactions of Charles S. Peirce Society. Vol. XLI No 1.161-188. (2005).

-Offers a complete analysis of Peirce’s account of the Index and explains which elements have most relevance for contemporary accounts of indexicals. (Draft available here).

• “Constructing the Imagined Antagonist”. In Argumentation in Practice. 163-180. (Eds) Van Eemeren & Houtlosser. (John Benjamins). (2005). (with J.E. Richardson)

-Counters complaints that argument can only exist between two (or more) present and intentional parties by introducing a model of argumentation that explains how argumentative interaction can exist between an arguer and non-present or potential antagonists. (Draft available here).