Article published In: Context-dependency of Argumentative Patterns
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1] 2017
► pp. 27–43
The role of the argument by example in legislative debates of the European Parliament
Published online: 6 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.02gar
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.02gar
Abstract
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 (13)
Eemeren, F. H. van (2016). Identifying argumentative patterns. A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 30(1), 1–23.
(2017). 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. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
(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.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Garssen, Bart & Iva Svačinová
Svačinová, Iva
2021. Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in theFirst Olynthiac. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 315 ff.
Lukianova, Ekaterina & Timothy Steffensmeier
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2017. The dependency of argumentative patterns on the institutional context. In Prototypical argumentative patterns [Argumentation in Context, 11], ► pp. 157 ff.
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.