2004
Volume 32, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

In this paper the choices for particular variants of pragmatic argumentation in advisory health brochures are explained by using the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. On the basis of the type of dispute that the brochure writer presupposes and the kind of advice that is at issue, four variants of pragmatic argumentation are distinguished. The choice for each of these variants is regarded as a strategic maneuver with which the writer attempts to reach his dialectical and rhetorical goals. It is argued that each of these variants has a strategic function in the resolution of the presupposed difference of opinion, because with each of them the writer anticipates on specific doubt or criticism with respect to the correctness conditions of the speech act of advising, which is the central speech act in health brochures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2010.3.DE_S386
2010-12-01
2022-05-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2010.3.DE_S386
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error