1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This introductory article concludes the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns manifesting themselves in communicative activity types in the political, legal and medical domain reported in this special issue of the () and an earlier special issue of the journal (2016, 30(1)). First, the results pertaining to the use of pragmatic argumentation in the main argumentation of prototypical argumentative patterns in the various domains are described that were reported in the latter issue. Next, the results are described which are reported in this issue of ; they pertain to prototypical argumentative patterns in the various domains that come into being as a result of the employment of an argument scheme in the main argumentation that is perfectly suited for being used in a certain communicative activity type in a specific domain. In the following section an overview is provided of the most conspicuous differences in the prototypical argumentative patterns between the various communicative domains caused by the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in the communicative activity types that were examined. Finally, some general conclusions are discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.01van
2017-03-31
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andone, C.
    (2016) Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation, 30(1), 45–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. van Eemeren, F.H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2016a) Bingo! Promising developments in argumentation theory. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp.3–25). Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2016b) Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  5. van Eemeren, F.H. , & 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]
  6. van Eemeren, F.H. , & Grootendorst, R.
    (1992) Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Feteris, E.T.
    (2016) Prototypical argumentative patterns in a legal context: The role of pragmatic argumentation in the justification of decisions. Argumentation, 30(1), 61–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2017) The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. This issue, 44–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Garssen, B.
    (2016) Problem-solving argumentative patterns in plenary debates of the European Parliament. Argumentation, 30(1), 25–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2017) The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament. This issue, 27–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.
    (2016) Argumentative patterns in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. Argumentation, 30(1), 81–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2017) Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. This issue, 59–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Toulmin, S.E.
    (2003) The uses of argument. Updated ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Wagemans, J.H.M.
    (2016) Argumentative patterns in scientific explanations. Argumentation, 30(1), 97–108.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.6.1.01van
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error