Chapter published in:
Prototypical Argumentative Patterns: Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Argumentation in Context 11] 2017
► pp. 7–30

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
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van
References
Andone, C.
(2013) Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(1986) Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.
(2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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.) CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 17 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In The Quest for Argumentative Equivalence [Argumentation in Context, 18], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 247 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Brambilla, Emanuele
2019.  In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2021. Examining argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1 ► pp. 8 ff. Crossref logo
Fetzer, Anita & Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
2021.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 520 ff. Crossref logo
Garssen, Bart
2017.  In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns [Argumentation in Context, 11], ► pp. 109 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Jakaza, Ernest
2019.  In Argumentation and Appraisal in Parliamentary Discourse [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 97 ff. Crossref 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 Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018.  In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33], ► pp. 149 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 33:2 ► pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2022. Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 6 ff. Crossref logo
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2019.  In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 321 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 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.