- Home
- e-Journals
- Journal of Argumentation in Context
- Previous Issues
- Volume 6, Issue, 2017
Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 6, Issue 1, 2017
Volume 6, Issue 1, 2017
-
Context-dependency of argumentative patterns in discourse
Author(s): Frans H. van Eemerenpp.: 3–26 (24)More LessThis 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 Journal of Argumentation in Context (JAIC) and an earlier special issue of the journal Argumentation (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 JAIC; 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.
-
The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament
Author(s): Bart Garssenpp.: 27–43 (17)More LessThis paper focuses on the role of the argument by example in the argumentation put forward by Members of the European Parliament. The argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debates in the European Parliament depend for the most part on the problem-solving argumentation that is put forward in the opening speech by the rapporteur of the parliamentary committee report. Complex problem-solving argumentation consists of a premise stating that there is a problem (the problem statement) and a premise stating that the proposed legislation will solve the problem (the causal statement). In their contributions, MEPs who are in favor of the proposal will either defend the problem statement or the causal statement. This paper examines how an argument by example is used in order to defend the problem statement. The argument by example can be used to defend the existential presupposition as well as the normative presupposition in the problem-statement.
-
The identification of prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions
Author(s): Eveline T. Feterispp.: 44–58 (15)More LessIn this contribution I identify prototypical patterns in the justification of judicial decisions. From a pragma-dialectical perspective, I explain the nature and rationale for the argumentative patterns from the perspective of the institutional function of legal justification and I distinguish different argumentative patterns in clear cases and hard cases in the justification of judicial decisions.
-
Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
Author(s): A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemanspp.: 59–75 (17)More LessIn 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.
-
Argumentative patterns in the European Union’s directives
Author(s): Corina Andone and Florin Coman-Kundpp.: 76–96 (21)More LessThis paper provides an account of the arguments advanced by the European Union (EU) legislator in the preamble of directives adopted for harmonization in the internal market, and assesses them as to their potential at convincing the Member States to implement the directive at issue. We show what directives should argue for and how they do so in practice, by focussing in particular on Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Furthermore, this contribution moves beyond a purely academic discussion by linking the theoretical-normative framework advanced to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s approach to assessing the preambles of EU directives in the context of the ‘check’ on the duty to state reasons under Article 296 Treaty for the of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Our analysis unveils a legislative practice in which the obligation to give reasons is not discharged adequately from an argumentative perspective, and which remains generally unsanctioned due to the rather light and flexible test used by CJEU under Article 296 TFEU.
Most Read This Month

-
-
Arguing with oneself
Author(s): Marta Zampa and Daniel Perrin
-
- More Less