Lotte van Poppel

University of Groningen | RUG · Department of Communication and Information Sciences

The use of metaphors is a common strategy in argumentative discourse to resolve disagreements and create common ground. Nonetheless, metaphor use could also backfire. An opponent could, for example, hijack a metaphor to oppose the proponent’s standpoint. The current study focuses on this type of resistance, which we have dubbed ‘metaphor exploitati...

Introduction: This paper examines pain, illness and medicine metaphors as used in consultations between chronic pain patients and anaesthesiologists, physiotherapists and psychologists in a Belgian pain clinic. As metaphors frame and highlight aspects of understanding and experiences of life events, including illness, they can provide insight in h...

With this study protocol, we present our approach to collaboratively coding metaphors in medical consultations, using the qualitative analysis software package ATLAS.ti. This project came with a number of challenges but also yielded a coded data set that was rich and versatile, and allowed for a wide array of analyses. We therefore believe it can b...

Regelmatig nemen patiënten een begeleider mee naar medische consulten. Het verloop van shared decision making (SDM) in consulten met drie partijen heeft tot nu toe echter weinig aandacht gekregen. In deze studie wordt nagegaan welke invloed de derde partij kan hebben op het beslisproces. Daartoe specificeren we de rollen die deze partij op zich kan...

This paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the...

In this chapter, the strategic functions of metaphor in argumentative discourse are studied by integrating insights from the three-dimensional (3D) model of metaphor (Steen 2008) and the extended pragma-dialectical theory (van Eemeren 2010). The aim of this study is to show that the combination of these approaches enriches argumentative metaphor an...

Argumentative discussions can contain various types of metaphor, but these do not all fulfil the same function in discourse: while some seem to express part of the argumentation, others seem to be irrelevant. So far, argumentation research has not explained when metaphors should be considered relevant for argumentation. In this paper, insights from...

This paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the...

This article addresses the problem of resistance to health advice. It is argued that potential criticism against advice in health settings can be systematically defined with the help of the felicity conditions of the speech act of advising. By taking into account the setting in which health advice is delivered, specified conditions for advising in...

This paper investigates what functions metaphors can have in argumentation and how they may provoke resistance. The pragma-dialectical theory and Steen’s (2008) 3D-model of metaphor are integrated to determine the possible uses of ‘deliberate’ metaphor in argumentation. Based on case studies, it is argued that deliberate metaphors can not only func...

Litotes is een stijlfiguur waarin een negatieve term wordt ontkend, zoals in de uitspraak ‘niet onaardig’. In dit artikel wordt nagegaan hoe litotes een redelijke en effectieve bijdrage zou kunnen vormen in een argumentatieve discussie. Op basis van de geïntegreerde pragma-dialectiek (Van Eemeren en Grootendorst 1984; Van Eemeren 2010) wordt bepaal...

The analysis of strategic manoeuvring with pragmatic arguments This article examines how strategic maneuvering with an argument can be analyzed systematically. According to Van Eemeren (2010), strategic maneuvering takes place in the discussion as a whole, in each discussion stage, but also in each individual discussion move, such as providing an a...

With direct-to-consumer advertisements (DTCA), pharmaceutical companies can market their prescription drugs directly to consumers. In order to properly study the argumentative aspects of these advertisements from a pragma-dialectical perspective, it is necessary to characterize DTCA as an ‘argumentative activity type’. This characterization shows t...

In this paper, I examine the strategic function of four variants of pragmatic argumentation in the context of advisory health brochures. I argue that each variant functions as a strategic manoeuvre that deals with potential countermoves: with variant I and II writers can address anticipated doubt with respect to the standpoint and with variants III...

Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics is written to honor Frans van Eemeren and his work in the field of argumentation theory on the occasion of his retirement. The volume contains 17 contributions from teams of authors consisting of a combination of a pragma-dialectician and one or two researchers with a different background in the field of argu...

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....

This article examines the possibilities and limitations of strategic maneuvering in the argumentation stage in advisory health brochures. It describes the conventions of health brochures and characterizes them in terms of an argumentative activity type in the medical domain by using the extended pragma-dialectical theory. The main institutional pre...