Argumentative Style

Eemeren, Frans H. van; Garssen, Bart; Greco, Sara; Haaften, Ton van; Labrie, Nanon; Leal, Fernando; Wu, Peiguan

doi:10.1075/aic.20

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason, recently a team of researchers, including – besides the two of us – Sara Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal and Wu Peng, set out to tackle this issue based on the theoretical starting points we explained in the previous sections. Their analytical empirical research concentrated on (1) political advertising and (2) parliamentary debates in the political domain, (3) press conferences in the diplomatic domain, (4) civil court’s judgements in the legal domain, (5) mediators’ opening speeches in the facilitatory domain, (6) peer-reviewed research papers in the academic domain and (7) doctor-patient consultations in the medical domain (Van Eemeren et al, 2022). From their earlier research, each of these researchers gained specific expertise concerning one of these seven argumentative practices, some of which take place orally, some in writing and in some the two are combined.…”

Section: Detached and Engaged Argumentative Styles In Different Insti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the analytical empirical research concerning the argumentative styles utilized in seven different communicative practices reported in Argumentative Style , and summarized in Sections 3.3–3.8, the inventory of the utilization of detached and engaged argumentative styles in these seven institutional macro-contexts can be made that is presented in Figure 1 (taken from Van Eemeren et al, 2022: 302). In cases where this seems enlightening, in order to characterize the argumentative styles that are utilized more precisely, a further specification is given of the kind of detached or engaged argumentative styles utilized in the diversity of institutional macro-contexts that that have been examined.…”

Section: Functional Differences In the Use Of Detached And Engaged Ar...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 11. For the study of argumentation in medical consultations from a pragma-dialectical perspective see Labrie (2014), Labrie et al (2021) and Van Eemeren et al (2021). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A functional diversity of argumentative styles

Eemeren

Garssen

2023

Discourse Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In dealing with the different ways in which argumentative styles manifest themselves in various communicative practices from several communicative domains, van Eemeren and Garssen start from a definition of argumentative style that is connected with the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering. Depending on the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are followed, and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear, they make a general distinction between detached and engaged argumentative styles. In this article, they report on recent research in which it is examined to what extent the argumentative styles that are prototypically used in different institutional macro-contexts from the political, the diplomatic, the juridical, the faciliatory, the academic and the medical domain belong to these two categories. In the analyses they discuss, the authors combine specialized and domain-specific background knowledge with pragma-dialectical insight into the properties of argumentative discourse that determine the argumentative style.

show abstract

Section: Detached and Engaged Argumentative Styles In Different Insti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Functional Differences In the Use Of Detached And Engaged Ar...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A functional diversity of argumentative styles

Eemeren

Garssen

2023

Discourse Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still more recently, the concepts of ‘argumentative pattern’ (a particular constellation of argumentative moves in which a particular argument scheme or a combination of argument schemes is used) and ‘argumentative style’ (a particular way in which an argumentative discourse is conducted by using differing kinds of strategic maneuvering) were added to the analytical toolkit of Pragma-Dialectics (cf. Van Eemeren, 2018; Van Eemeren et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first, ‘A Functional Diversity of Argumentative Styles’, written by Frans Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, summarizes the results of a series of thorough empirical analyses of argumentative styles across an impressive variety of genres of argumentative discourse and communicative domains: political advertising, parliamentary debates, diplomatic press conferences, a civil court’s judgment, mediators’ opening statements, peer-reviewed research papers, and family-centered medical consultations (Van Eemeren et al, 2022). The results confirm the usefulness of the basic distinction between a ‘detached’ and an ‘engaged’ style, but suggestions for a refinement of this dichotomy are also made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Kienpointner

2023

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue represents some of the recent developments within argumentation studies. The following overview provides some historical context for the five papers which constitute this special issue. The Aristotelian roots of modern argumentation studies are briefly presented, as well as some further developments within Greek and Roman rhetoric. Furthermore, the most important developments in argumentation studies during the last few decades are sketched. Several modern approaches to argumentation theory are introduced, among them Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Toulmin’s model of argumentation, formal dialectics, fallacy theory, informal logic, the Argumentum Model and Pragma-Dialectics. Finally, the thematic focus of the five papers is described.

show abstract

The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View

Eemeren

Haaften

2023

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In ‘The making of argumentation theory’ van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness – the crucial issue in argumentation theory – van Eemeren and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale’s work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale’s view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale’s approach this role is assigned to Tindale’s interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience.

show abstract

Argumentative Style

Cited by 9 publications

References 62 publications

A functional diversity of argumentative styles

A functional diversity of argumentative styles

Introduction

The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About