Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation in European Politics
Edited by Corina Andone and Bart Garssen
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1] 2022
► pp. 6–26

Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style

Mr. Schlyter’s contribution to the debate on labelling fruit juices

| ILIAS, University of Amsterdam | Leiden University
There is much more to argumentative style than just the well-known presentational (“linguistic”) dimension. Equally important dimensions of the argumentative styles utilised in resolving a difference of opinion are the topical dimension of the selection of the standpoints, starting points, arguments and concluding statements put forward in the discourse and the dimension of the adaptations to the presumed demand of the audience that is to be convinced. In argumentative discourse these three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves together in the argumentative moves that are made, the argumentative routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear. Starting from this perspective, it is shown in this article how the argumentative style can be identified that was utilised by a Member of the European Parliament in a plenary debate on labelling fruit juices.
Keywords: argumentative move, argumentative style, detached argumentative style, dialectical route, engaged argumentative style, plenary parliamentary debate, stage of the argumentative process, strategic consideration, strategic manoeuvring
Article outline
  • 1.Argumentative discourse in parliament
  • 2.A contribution to the European parliament’s debate on labelling fruit juices
  • 3.The pragma-dialectical notion of argumentative style
  • 4.An analysis of Mr. Schlyter’s argumentative discourse
    • 4.1The analytically relevant moves that are made
    • 4.2The dialectical route that is followed
    • 4.3The strategic considerations motivating the strategic design of the discourse
  • 5.The argumentative style utilised in MEP Schlyter’s contribution
    • 5.1The identification of the argumentative style
    • 5.2Characteristics of his confrontational style
    • 5.3Characteristics of his opening style
    • 5.4Characteristics of his argumentational style
    • 5.5Characteristics of his concluding style
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21020.eem
References (12)
References
Bachrach, P. (1967). The theory of democratic elitism: A Critique. Boston: Little and Brown.Google Scholar
Coser, L. (1959). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2015). Democracy and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 827–841). Cham (Switzerland) etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Argumentation Library 33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2019). Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation 33 (2), 153–171. DOI logoGoogle 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
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Greco, S., Haaften, T. van, Labrie, N., Leal, F., & Wu Peng. (2022). Argumentative style. A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in different communicative domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context. To be published.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linz, J. (1990). Transitions to democracy. Washington Quarterly, Summer, 143–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Brambilla, Emanuele
2024. Chapter 6. Argumentative style in international adoption dossiers. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Duarte, Antonio
2024. Epidemiology of Fallacies. Argumentation 38:3 ► pp. 329 ff. 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 19 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.