Argumentative patterns in discourse

This paper discusses the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself. As a consequence of the institutional preconditions applying to the strategic manoeuvring taking place in specific communicative activity types, certain context-dependent argumentative patterns of standpoints, argument schemes and argumentation structures can be observed. Because of their interest in the extent to which argumentative discourse is context-dependent, pragma-dialecticians are out to discover such specific patterns. As a case in point, the authors discuss some institutionally motivated argumentative patterns in parliamentary debate in the European Parliament

In Varietate Concordia—United in Diversity: European Parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type

This paper focuses on argumentation in a specific institutional context: debate in the European Parliament. A parliamentary debate is a distinct argumentative activity type. In the pragma-dialectical approach, argumentative activity types are defined as conventionalized argumentative practices in which the possibilities for strategic manoeuvring are predetermined. What are the characteristics of the activity type of a debate in European Parliament that predetermine the possibilities for strategic manoeuvring? What kind of constraints and opportunities for strategic manoeuvring can be distinguished

Problem-Solving Argumentative Patterns in Plenary Debates of the European Parliament

The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which argumentative patterns come into being in plenary debate over legislative issues in the European Parliament. What kind of argumentative patterns are to be expected within this macro context? It is shown that the argumentative patterns that come into being in legislative debate 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. This argumentation can be pragmatic problem-solving argumentation or complex problem-solving argumentation. The most important prototypical argumentative patterns are investigated in the argumentation put forward by the Members of parliament. This investigation is based on an inventory of the arguments that can in principle be used to support or attack the initial problem-solving argumentation put forward by the rapporteur

Towards a Model of Pragmatic Justification

It is stated that justification may be a prerequisite for any claim that is made, whether the claim is about a weather forecast by a meteorologist, an accusation of negligence by an employee against his or her employers, or a doctor's diagnosis. Justification denotes a communicative event which is meant to compensate for the violation of a certain norm or to enable recipient to understand better something unpredicted or disputed.Although justification is ubiquitous in everyday life, it has so far remained relatively unexplored. This study provides the first investigation of justification as a communicative event and from a pragmatic point of view. It paper attempts to develop a model which can be used for the analysis of data in relation to pragmatic justification. Additionally, the workability of the model will be tested against data collected from political speeches produced by Tony Blair and Barack Obama