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


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Eemeren, F. H. van
    (2016) 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]
  2. 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]
  3. Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R.
    (1992) Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Eemeren, F. H. van & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2017) Argumentation. Analysis and Evaluation. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 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: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_10 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1997) Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2001) Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp.81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2014) Boekbesprekingen van Sorm (2010) en Timmers (2014). Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing (36) 3: 324–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. PAGB Medicines Advertising Codes
    PAGB Medicines Advertising Codes 2009 edition, updatedJuly 2013 (www.pagbadvertisingcode.com/_common/pdf/PAGBAdvertisingCodes.pdf.)
  10. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2016) Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements. Argumentation (30) 1: 81–95. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9373‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9373-3 [Google Scholar]
  11. Schellens, P.J.
    (1985) Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
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