Prototypical Argumentative Patterns
Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Editor
Frans H. van Eemeren | ILIAS & Leiden University & University of Amsterdam
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns reports about a research project started at the University of Amsterdam in 2012. In this project distinctive argumentative patterns have been identified in argumentative discourse in the political, the legal and the medical domain. These patterns consist of constellations of argumentative moves in which, in order to deal with a particular kind of difference of opinion, in defence of a particular type of standpoint, a particular argument scheme or combination of argument schemes is used in a particular kind of argumentation structure. The composition of these prototypical argumentative patterns can be explained by referring to the institutional characteristics of the communicative activity types in which they occur. By exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and the institutional context, Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Corina Andone, Eveline Feteris and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans have provided a new and illuminating perspective on the context-dependency of argumentative discourse.
[Argumentation in Context, 11] 2017. ix, 184 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
Table of Contents
-
Preface | p. vii
-
Acknowledgment | p. ix
-
Chapter 1. IntroductionFrans H. van Eemeren | pp. 1–5
-
Chapter 2. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspectiveFrans H. van Eemeren | pp. 7–29
-
Chapter 3. The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European ParliamentBart Garssen | pp. 31–51
-
Chapter 4. The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiryCorina Andone | pp. 53–70
-
Chapter 5. The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisisonsEveline T. Feteris | pp. 71–91
-
Chapter 6. The role of pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisementsA. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans | pp. 93–108
-
Chapter 7. Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European ParliamentBart Garssen | pp. 109–124
-
Chapter 8. Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisionsEveline T. Feteris | pp. 125–138
-
Chapter 9. Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisementsA. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans | pp. 139–155
-
Chapter 10. The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional contextFrans H. van Eemeren | pp. 157–180
-
Authors | p. 181
-
Index | pp. 183–184
“
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns is strongly recommended to all scholars interested in argumentation. [T]his book makes a compelling argument for the valuable integration of the study of prototypical argumentation in argumentation theory. In this sense, it offers new directions to argumentation analysis and provides the instruments to engage in specific domains that, nowadays, are of core interest to the study of argumentative practice.””
Sara Rubinelli, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research, in Journal of Argumentation in Context, 7:3 (2018).
Cited by
Cited by 13 other publications
No author info given
2021.
In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics,
► pp. 247 ff. 
Andone, Corina
2022. Arguing through quotations.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 69 ff.
Andone, Corina & Bart Garssen
2022. Introduction.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Fairclough, Isabela
2019. Deontic power and institutional contexts.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 ► pp. 136 ff.
Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
2021.
In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics,
► pp. 520 ff.
Greco, Sara
2022. Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion.
Argumentation
Kienpointner, Manfred
2021. Review of van Eemeren (2018): Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 262 ff.
Mohammed, Dima
2022. Negative campaigning.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 88 ff.
Renkema, Jan & Christoph Schubert
2018.
In Introduction to Discourse Studies,
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018.
In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33],
► pp. 33 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018.
In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33],
► pp. 149 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Wu Peng
2017.
In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics [Argumentation in Context, 12],
► pp. 1 ff.
Wang, Bin & Frank Zenker
2021. Slippery Slope Arguments in Legal Contexts: Towards Argumentative Patterns.
Argumentation 35:4 ► pp. 581 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 december 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Subjects & Metadata
Communication Studies
Philosophy
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics