David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):51-65 (2012)
The relevance of context has been acknowledged also recently as a fundamental element for the correct evaluation of argumentative moves within institutional fields of interaction. Indeed, not considering the larger culture-specific and social features of the context within which the interactions take place poses problems of interpretation of the data and comparability of results. Starting from these considerations, the paper aims at discussing a model for the description of the social context of interaction that may allow for a better interpretation and evaluation of argumentative moves within medical consultations. The efficacy of the model is shown by applying it to the description and analysis of examples of real-life consultations recorded in the Italian region of Lombardy. In the first section, the model for the description of the social context of interaction is presented and discussed. In the second section, examples of argumentative passages from a selection of consultations are presented and commented on by relying on the model. Some concluding remarks and further developments of the research are proposed in the final section Keywords: communication context, argumentation in context, situated discourse, medical consultation
|Keywords||argumentation medical consultation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Assimakis Tseronis (2011). From Connectives to Argumentative Markers: A Quest for Markers of Argumentative Moves and of Related Aspects of Argumentative Discourse. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (4):427-447.
Taeda Jovičić (2004). Authority-Based Argumentative Strategies: A Model for Their Evaluation. Argumentation 18 (1):1-24.
Sara Rubinelli & Claudia Zanini (2012). Teaching Argumentation Theory to Doctors: Why and What. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):66-80.
Raimo Puustinen (1999). Bakhtin's Philosophy and Medical Practice — Toward a Semiotic Theory of Doctor — Patient Interaction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2 (3):275-281.
Roosmaryn Pilgram (2012). Reasonableness of a Doctor’s Argument by Authority: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Specific Soundness Conditions. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):33-50.
Nanon Labrie (2012). Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point. [REVIEW] Argumentation 26 (2):171-199.
Frans van Eemeren (2011). In Context. Argumentation 25 (2):141-161.
Tanja Ramsauer & Andreas Frewer (2009). Clinical Ethics Committees and Pediatrics. An Evaluation of Case Consultations. Diametros 22:90 – 104.
Paul J. Ford & Denise M. Dudzinski (eds.) (2008). Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases That Haunt Us. Cambridge University Press.
Renske Wierda & Jacky Visser Visser (2012). Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements for Prescription Drugs as an Argumentative Activity Type. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):81-96.
David C. Thomasma (1991). Why Philosophers Should Offer Ethics Consultations. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 12 (2).
Andreas Vieth (2011). Inclusive Consultation: A Hermeneutical Approach to Ethical Deliberation in the Clinical Setting. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 23 (4):295-304.
Margareth Sandvik (1997). Reconstructing Interactive Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation 11 (4):419-434.
Marianne Doury (2012). Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees? Argumentation 26 (1):99-114.
Added to index2012-06-06
Total downloads91 ( #42,642 of 1,789,933 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #317,270 of 1,789,933 )
How can I increase my downloads?