Abstract
Strategic manoeuvring while taking the institutional preconditions into account results in the various domains of argumentative reality in different kinds of argumentative patterns, consisting of specific constellations of argumentative moves. Depending on the institutional preconditions, different “prototypical” argumentative patterns will come into being in the various (clusters of) communicative activity types. In this chapter some prototypical argumentative patterns are described that are characteristic of communicative activity types in the political, the medical and the legal domain. It is explained that further research is required concerning other prototypical argumentative patterns, “stereotypical” argumentative patterns which occur frequently, differences caused by the cultural or ideological background, “strategic scenarios”, “argumentative styles”, and interventions based on observations of argumentative patterns.
This chapter is primarily based on van Eemeren (Ed. 2017) and more in particular on van Eemeren (2017a, b).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For the sake of clarity the descriptions of the argumentative patterns given in this chapter are restricted to the various single argumentations that are advanced explicitly, without going into their internal composition. In order to give a more thorough account of a specific argumentative pattern, a more detailed description must be given in which its unexpressed parts are also included.
- 2.
In the descriptions of argumentative patterns included in this chapter pragmatic argumentation is, just like other types of argumentation, recorded in a simplified way, without specifying its internal composition.
References
Andone, C. (2017). The role of pragmatic and majority argumentation in reports of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Feteris, E. T. (2017). Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 125–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Garssen, B. (2017a). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Garssen, B. (2017b). Argumentative patterns with argumentation by example in legislative debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 109–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Argumentative patterns with symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative pattersn. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 139–155). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).
van Eemeren, F. H. (2017a). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2017b). The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 157–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed. 2017). Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H. (2018). Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. In: Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95380-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95381-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)