scholarly journals The Extended Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Theory Empirically Interpreted

2015 ◽  
pp. 759-771
Author(s):  
Frans van Eemeren ◽  
Bart Garssen ◽  
Bert Meuffels
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation

Violence metaphors for cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Dunja Y. M. Wackers ◽  
H. José Plug ◽  
Gerard J. Steen
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation

Abstract The use of violence metaphors for cancer has been widely criticised both in academic and non-academic contexts (see Harrington, 2012; Semino et al., 2015). Whereas previous research on violence metaphors for cancer has focused on the use and functions of these metaphors by and for different stakeholder groups, no studies to date have examined the (various) arguments that are raised in public discourse that is critical of said metaphors. Applying concepts from pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), this paper sets out to analyse types of argumentation occurring in critical public discussions of violence metaphors for cancer. Close argumentative analyses of actual discourse examples will be provided in order to illustrate the differences between two types of argumentation in particular, i.e. pragmatic and symptomatic argumentation.

scholarly journals Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ton Van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Stylistic Analysis ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Argumentative Strategy ◽  
Argumentative Strategies ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Important Basis

The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is often carried out according to an argumentative strategy. Language users make an effort to present their strategic manoeuvres in a specific way and the analysis of the stylistic choices in actual argumentative discourse is the most important basis for identification and analysis of argumentative strategies. In this article, it is shown what requirements must be satisfied by a systematic stylistic analysis of argumentative discourse, and the results of such an analysis are illustrated by means of a case study.

scholarly journals Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128
Author(s):  
Ton van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentative Activity

Abstract Strategic manoeuvring in plenary debates in the Second Chamber of Dutch ParliamentThe (extended) pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is carried out within specific argumentative activity types. In this paper it is argued that pragma-dialectics offers a fruitful approach to study political debate. The approach and its added value are discussed and illustrated on the basis of a specific type of political debate in a specific argumentative activity type: the plenary debate in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.

scholarly journals Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decision-making when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Ideal

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document