Cover not available
Article published In:
Context-dependency of Argumentative Patterns
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1] 2017
► pp. 59–75

Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements

| University of Amsterdam, ILIAS

In this paper, the analysis given in Snoeck Henkemans (2016) of argumentative patterns in over-the-counter medicine advertisements is extended by providing more insight into the argumentative patterns resulting from the support of two types of claims: the claim that the medicinal product is safe and the claim that there is no better alternative for the product. It is first established which types of argument are prototypically used to support these claims. Then it is investigated what kind of extensions might result from arguers’ attempts to further support those arguments. Finally, it is explained how the argumentative patterns revolving around the ‘safety’ and ‘no better alternative’ claims can be seen as the result of advertisers’ strategic choices in selecting and presenting their arguments within the institutional constraints applying to the activity type of over-the-counter advertisements.

Keywords: Argument scheme, Evaluative proposition, Institutional precondition, Over-the-counter medicine advertisement, Presentational Strategy, Safety claim, Side-effects, Strategic manoeuvring, Symptomatic argument
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Supporting ‘safety’ and ‘there is no better alternative’ claims
  • 3.Types of symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
    • Safety claims
    • No better alternative claims
  • 4.Extensions of symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
  • 5.Manoeuvring strategically with symptomatic argumentation within the institutional constraints of OTC-medicine advertisements
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 April 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.04sno
References
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2016) Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation (30) 1: 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Garssen, B.
(2014) Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R.
(1992) Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2017) Argumentation. Analysis and Evaluation. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garssen, B.
(2009) Comparing the incomparable. Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation. Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 133–140). Dordrecht etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
(2001) Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Boekbesprekingen van Sorm (2010) en Timmers (2014). Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing (36) 3: 324–330.Google Scholar
PAGB Medicines Advertising Codes
2009 edition, updated July 2013 ([URL].)
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2016) Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements. Argumentation (30) 1: 81–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schellens, P.J.
(1985) Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wierda, R.
(2015) Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. An analytical and experimental study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
2019. Chapter 13. Characteristics of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.