H. José Plug

H. José Plug
University of Amsterdam | UVA · Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric

About

43
Publications
2,754
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
154
Citations
Citations since 2016
11 Research Items
93 Citations
2016201720182019202020212022010203040
2016201720182019202020212022010203040
2016201720182019202020212022010203040
2016201720182019202020212022010203040

Publications

Publications (43)
Article
Full-text available
Violence metaphors for cancer can have undesirable implications. The metaphorical expression “She lost her battle with cancer,” for instance, is deemed inappropriate by some because of the implicit suggestions it would carry about patients’ responsibility to recover from the disease – if someone “lost” it is inferred they could also have “won” if o...
Article
Full-text available
Expressions of resistance to violence metaphors for cancer provide important insights as to how these metaphors are perceived and which specific aspects of their use are deemed inapt or inappropriate by actual language users. The first objective of this paper is to examine different types of resistance standpoints that are expressed in critical res...
Chapter
Linguistic argumentation, using the meaning of the wording in a statutory norm, often plays an important role in the justification of interpretative standpoints in legal decisions. In legal theory, the use of linguistic argumentation is often discussed, but the reconstruction of the use of this argumentation in light of the different evaluation cri...
Article
The use of violence metaphors for cancer has been widely criticised both in academic and non-academic contexts (see Harrington, 2012 ; Semino et al., 2015 ). Whereas previous research on violence metaphors for cancer has focused on the use and functions of these metaphors by and for different stakeholder groups, no studies to date have examined the...
Chapter
One of the existing methods for assessing populist discourse is by fact-checking. This practice, however, is limited in scope in that it only assesses the truth of an isolated statement of fact. In order to enlarge the existing repertoire for critically responding to populist discourse, Plug and Wagemans propose to develop a method for what they ca...
Conference Paper
National and international systems of law differ in as far as they allow separate opinions to be published. In the Netherlands, for example, collegial courts speak with one voice. In the European Court of Human Rights, however, court members who disagree with the majority of the court may express their divergent views in a separate opinion. In this...
Article
Impartiality is one of the core values underlying the administration of justice. A complaint about a judge’s supposed lack of impartiality may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behavior. In this article I will analyze complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical questions during court hearings. I will explore what role these co...
Article
The judge’s rhetorical questions as ground of objection: an argumentation-analytical model A complaint about the lack of impartiality of a judge may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behaviour. Such a complaint may result in the disqualification of the judge. In this paper, criticism on the verbal behaviour of the judge will be discusse...
Chapter
Full-text available
Political cartoons may be understood as instances of visual or multimodal argumentative discourse. When a political cartoon is a subject of controversy, the criticism of the cartoon may therefore be aimed at the argumentation. For the purpose of a systematic analysis of visual and multimodal argumentation that gives rise to controversy, I make use...
Chapter
Members of Parliament may make use of argumentation from examples to justify policies and legislation. In this contribution I concentrate on how argumentation from example may be used to manoeuvre strategically in plenary legislative debates in the European parliament. As a framework for the analysis of the argumentative use of examples in the inst...
Article
Full-text available
This article focuses on strategic manoeuvring that takes place in Dutch administrative judicial decisions. These decisions may be seen as a distinct argumentative activity type. Starting from the characteristics that traditionally are pertinent to this activity type, I will explore how implications of current discussions on the changing task of the...
Chapter
Full-text available
An important topic in the debate about transparency of the administration of justice includes the communicative function of judicial decisions. This function should be conceived as the judge’s aim to have his argumentation understood (the communicative effect), as well as to have it accepted (the interactional effect). In this paper I will analyse...
Chapter
Full-text available
This article tackles the question as to how transformations of well-known visualizations of metaphors may be used to manoeuvre strategically when criticizing politicians or political actions.
Article
In order to be able to evaluate argumentation supporting judicial decisions, certain norms of reasonableness will have to be agreed upon. These norms will enable us to decide on the soundness of the argumentation. Various publications demonstrated that the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, in which norms with respect to the quality of argume...
Article
Full-text available
Politicians appear to be aware that the use of metaphors is subject to a number of specific requirements so as to be comprehensible and acceptable. This becomes apparent in the analysis of cases in which MPs or ministers apologize for their use of metaphors by means of introductions such as ‘this image may not be quite clear, but…’. In an attempt t...
Article
Full-text available
Naar aanleiding van kritiek op de inzichtelijkheid van strafrechtelijke vonnissen door zowel leken als professionals is de rechterlijke macht in 2004 een grootschalig project gestart: Promis. Doel van het project is om tot een betere bewijs- en strafmotivering te komen en daarmee tot een betere communicatie tussen de strafrechter, betrokkenen en ui...
Article
Full-text available
Although the genetic argument is a widely used interpretative argument, what it amounts to does not seem to be altogether clear. Basic forms of the genetic argument that are distinguished are often too rough to provide an adequate basis for the evaluation of an interpretative decision. In this article I attempt to provide a more detailed analysis o...
Article
Full-text available
The quality of argumentation in parliamentary debates may play an important role in the evaluation of legislative decisions. In this contribution I will discuss shortcomings in the application of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory for the analysis and evaluation of the argumentation in a parliamentary debate op the penalization of stalking...
Chapter
Full-text available
A decision by a court of law is usually justified by means of complex argumentation. Since the way in which the argumentation is structured has important consequences for the evaluation of a judicial decision, it is necessary to have a clear insight into how the justification is structured. However, when analysing complex argumentation, it is somet...
Article
Full-text available
The question as to whether or not an argument is additional may be decisive in the evaluation of judicial decisions. It is, however, often difficult to distinguish between arguments that are additional (obiter dicta) and arguments that are not (ratio decidendi). This paper will focus on two problems concerning this distinction: the characterization...

Network

Cited By