Article published In: Context-dependency of Argumentative Patterns
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 6:1] 2017
► pp. 59–75
Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
Published online: 6 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.04sno
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.04sno
Abstract
In this paper, the analysis given in PAGB Medicines Advertising Codes. 2009 edition, updated July 2013. ([URL].) of argumentative patterns in over-the-counter medicine advertisements is extended by providing more insight into the argumentative patterns resulting from the support of two types of claims: the claim that the medicinal product is safe and the claim that there is no better alternative for the product. It is first established which types of argument are prototypically used to support these claims. Then it is investigated what kind of extensions might result from arguers’ attempts to further support those arguments. Finally, it is explained how the argumentative patterns revolving around the ‘safety’ and ‘no better alternative’ claims can be seen as the result of advertisers’ strategic choices in selecting and presenting their arguments within the institutional constraints applying to the activity type of over-the-counter advertisements.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Supporting ‘safety’ and ‘there is no better alternative’ claims
- 3.Types of symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
- Safety claims
- No better alternative claims
- 4.Extensions of symptomatic argumentation in OTC-medicine advertisements
- 5.Manoeuvring strategically with symptomatic argumentation within the institutional constraints of OTC-medicine advertisements
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (12)
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. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F. H. van & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Argumentation. Analysis and Evaluation. New York/London: Routledge.
Garssen, B. (2009). Comparing the incomparable. Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation. Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 133–140). Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
(1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Amsterdam: IFOTT.
(2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
(2014). Boekbesprekingen van Sorm (2010) en Timmers (2014). Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing (36) 3: 324–330.
PAGB Medicines Advertising Codes. 2009 edition, updated July 2013. ([URL].)
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2016). Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements. Argumentation (30) 1: 81–95.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Akkermans, Aranka, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Nanon H. M. Labrie, Inge Henselmans & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven
2019. Characteristics of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 237 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.