The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament
This 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Prototypical argumentative patterns in the debates of the European Parliament
- 3.The argument by example
- 4.The use of the argument by example in debates of the European Parliament
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References
Copi, I. M.
(
1982)
Introduction to logic. New York/London: Macmillan.
Eemeren, F. H. van
(
2016)
Identifying argumentative patterns. A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics.
Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B.
(
2010)
In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type.
Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B.
(
2014)
Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In
H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.),
Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Garssen. B. J.
(
1997)
Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical study]. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
Garssen, B.
(
2016)
Problem-solving argumentative patterns in plenary debates of the European Parliament.
Argumentation, 30(1), 25–43.
Hastings, A. C.
(
1962)
A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Jackson, S.
(
1986)
Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In:
D. G. Ellis &
W. A. Donohane (Eds.).
Contemporary issues in language and discourse (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Kruger, A. N.
(
1960)
Modern debate, its logic and strategy. New York etc.: McGraw-Hill.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(
1969)
The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Plug, H. J.
(
2010)
The strategic use of argumentation from example in plenary debates in the European Parliament.
Controversia, 7 (1), 38–56.
Schellens, P. J.
(
1985)
Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers [Reasonable arguments. A study of norms for critical readers]. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Lukianova, Ekaterina & Timothy Steffensmeier
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.