Article published In: Argumentation in European Politics
Edited by Corina Andone and Bart Garssen
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1] 2022
► pp. 6–26
Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style
Mr. Schlyter’s contribution to the debate on labelling fruit juices
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Amsterdam.
Published online: 8 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21020.eem
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21020.eem
Abstract
There is much more to argumentative style than just the well-known presentational (“linguistic”) dimension. Equally important dimensions of the argumentative styles utilised in resolving a difference of opinion are the topical dimension of the selection of the standpoints, starting points, arguments and concluding statements put forward in the discourse and the dimension of the adaptations to the presumed demand of the audience that is to be convinced. In argumentative discourse these three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves together in the argumentative moves that are made, the argumentative routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear. Starting from this perspective, it is shown in this article how the argumentative style can be identified that was utilised by a Member of the European Parliament in a plenary debate on labelling fruit juices.
Article outline
- 1.Argumentative discourse in parliament
- 2.A contribution to the European parliament’s debate on labelling fruit juices
- 3.The pragma-dialectical notion of argumentative style
- 4.An analysis of Mr. Schlyter’s argumentative discourse
- 4.1The analytically relevant moves that are made
- 4.2The dialectical route that is followed
- 4.3The strategic considerations motivating the strategic design of the discourse
- 5.The argumentative style utilised in MEP Schlyter’s contribution
- 5.1The identification of the argumentative style
- 5.2Characteristics of his confrontational style
- 5.3Characteristics of his opening style
- 5.4Characteristics of his argumentational style
- 5.5Characteristics of his concluding style
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (12)
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2.
. (2015). Democracy and argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 827–841). Cham (Switzerland) etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27.
. (2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp.7–29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
. (2018). Argumentation theory. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham (Switzerland): Springer. Argumentation Library 33.
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., Greco, S., Haaften, T. van, Labrie, N., Leal, F., & Wu Peng. (2022). Argumentative style. A pragma-dialectical study of functional variety in different communicative domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context. To be published.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 31–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Yang, Xian-Ju, Chun-Chun Shen-Tu & Chunhong Liu,
Brambilla, Emanuele
2024. Argumentative style in international adoption dossiers. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 134 ff.
Vallès-Botey, Teresa
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.