Abstract
The latest book is a timely application of the Pragma-Dialectical argumentative approach to medical consultation. The book consists of six chapters, which are concerned with topics pertaining to resolving differences of the opinion in doctor-patient interaction. With the publication of the book, the authors have made new contributions to the field of doctor-patient argumentative discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Byrne, Patrick, Sarsfield, and E. L. Barrie, and Long. 1976. Doctors Talking to Patients: A Study of the Verbal Behaviour of General Practitioners Consulting in Their Surgeries. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Heritage, John, and Douglas W. Maynard. 2006. Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labrie, Nanon. 2014. For the sake of argument: Considering the role, characteristics, and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation (Doctoral dissertation). Lugano: Università della Svizzera italiana.
Labrie, Nanon. 2019. “Doctor, I disagree”: Development and preliminary validation of a patient argumentativeness scale. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8: 336–353.
Pilgram, R. 2009. Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: Medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type. Studies in Communication Sciences 9: 153–169.
Rubinelli, Sara, and Peter Schulz. 2006. Let Me Tell You Why!” When argumentation in doctor-patient interaction makes a difference. Argumentation 20: 353–375. “ .
Rubinelli, Sara, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2014. Argumentation and health. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schulz, P., and Sara Rubinelli. 2008. Arguing ‘for’ the patient: Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor-patient interaction. Argumentation 22: 423–432.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2018. Argumentation theory. A Pragma-Dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/ Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., J. Bart, Garssen, and H. M. Nanon, and Labrie. 2021. Argumentation between doctors and patients: Understanding clinical argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Poppel, Lotte. 2012. The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1: 97–112.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ZHU, L., WANG, W. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Nanon Labrie: argumentation between doctors and patients: understanding clinical argumentative discourse. Argumentation 37, 147–152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09574-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09574-6