Cover not available
Part of
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 7–29

Chapter 2
Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective

Article outline
  • 2.1Introduction
  • 2.2The pragma-dialectical standard theory
  • 2.3The extended pragma-dialectical theory
  • 2.4Taking the institutional context of argumentative discourse into account
  • 2.5Prototypical argumentative patterns
  • 2.6Argumentative patterns with pragmatic argumentation as main argument
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van
References (41)
References
Eemeren, F. H. van (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices. Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
(2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
(2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Analyzing contextualized argumentative discourse. Strengthening the relationship between Rigotti’s aspirations and pragma-dialectics. In G. Gobber & A. Rocci (Eds.), Language, reason and education. Studies in honor of Eddo Rigotti (pp. 103–121). Bern etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia – United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
(2011). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012a). Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1994). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma- dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1984). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 6(4), 297–310.Google Scholar
(1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 239–245.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Seizing the occasion. Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihnen Jory, C. (2010). The analysis of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: Second reading of the terrorism bill in the British House of Commons. Controversia, 7(1), 91–107.Google Scholar
(2012). Analysing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in lawmaking debates: Institutional constraints on pragmatic argumentation in the British parliament. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Labrie, N. (2012). Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions. Two cases in point. Argumentation, 26(2), 171–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mohammed, D. (2009). “ The honourable gentleman should make up his mind ”. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority. An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Plug, H. J. (2010). Ad-hominem arguments in Dutch and European parliamentary debates: Strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context. In C. Ilie (Ed.), Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates (pp. 305–328). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2011). Parrying ad-hominem arguments in parliamentary debates. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Chapter 138, pp. 1570–1578). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-rom.Google Scholar
Poppel, L. van (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Shared medical decision-making. Strategic maneuvering by doctors in the presentation of their treatment preferences to patients. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (Chapter 162, pp. 1811–1818). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-rom.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks etc.: Sage.Google Scholar
Tonnard, Y. M. (2011). Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Wierda, R. (2015). Strategic maneuvering with authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. An analytical and experimental study into authority argumentation relying on experience expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cited by (28)

Cited by 28 other publications

Catenaccio, Paola
2024. Chapter 5. Legitimation in contested industries. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Reijven, Menno H.
2024. “So I know how to do this”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Roncoroni, Tiziana
2024. Chapter 9. Argumentation in scientific discourse. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Greco, Sara, Chiara Mercuri, Barbara De Cock & Rebecca Schär
2023. Arguing through best practice: The role of argumentation from example in activists’ social media posts on sustainable fashion. Discourse Studies 25:4 ► pp. 530 ff. DOI logo
Jansen, Henrike
2023. High Costs and Low Benefits: Analysis and Evaluation of the “I’m Not Stupid” Argument. Argumentation 37:4 ► pp. 529 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Peng & Tian-bao Zhou
2023. Argumentative patterns based on pragmatic argumentation at China’s diplomatic press conferences. Discourse Studies 25:4 ► pp. 549 ff. DOI logo
Bilstrup Finsen, Andreas, Gerard J. Steen & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2021. How do scientists criticize the computer metaphor of the brain?. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2021. Examining argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 33:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2022. Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
2021. Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 520 ff. DOI logo
Greco, Sara
2021. Review of Brambilla (2020): The quest for argumentative equivalence. Argumentative patterns in political interpreting contexts. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 418 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2023. Disentangling Critical Questions from Argument Schemes. Argumentation 37:3 ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2024. Journalists’ questions during crisis. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:1 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
Selvam, Pavithra Panir & Aini Marina Ma’rof
2021. Exploring Pre-University Students’ Construction of Reasoned Argumentation during Computer - Supported Collaborative Discussions Using Sequential Analysis. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology 29:S1 DOI logo
Brambilla, Emanuele
2019. Chapter 10. Prototypical argumentative patterns in activist discourse. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Brambilla, Emanuele
2023. On the defence of antifascist Italy in Alcide De Gasperi’s 1946 speech to the Paris Peace Conference. Discourse Studies 25:4 ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Jakaza, Ernest
2019. Intersubjective Stance and Argumentation in Zimbabwean Parliamentary Discourse. In Argumentation and Appraisal in Parliamentary Discourse [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2019. Chapter 17. And then you are left holding the baby!. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Chuanrui & Cihua Xu
2018. Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering in TV Commercials: A Case Study. Argumentation 32:4 ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Garssen, Bart
2017. The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament. Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Garssen, Bart
2017. Chapter 7. Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns [Argumentation in Context, 11], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. The Quest for Argumentative Equivalence [Argumentation in Context, 18], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Argumentative Style [Argumentation in Context, 20], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Responding to Questions at Press Conferences [Argumentation in Context, 21], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. 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.