Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

The stereotypicality of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer

Buy Article:

$31.57 + tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract

A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patternsĀ – patterns that can be theoretically expected in view of the type of standpoint defended, the institutional aim, and the conventions and constraints of the context (Van Eemeren 2016:13–15). This paper aims to add a new dimension to both this line of research and research on health communication by determining whether the prototypical types of argumentation in consultations about palliative systemic treatment for advanced cancer are stereotypical as well, that is, whether they are dominant in a quantitative sense (van Eemeren 2016:16). For this purpose, a valid and reliable measurement instrument is developed and used in a content analysis of the transcripts of 49 consultations. On the basis of the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the use of symptomatic and pragmatic argumentation is stereotypical in this type of consultations.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: argumentative pattern; doctor-patient communication; palliative care; pragmatic argumentation; prototypical types of argumentation; stereotypical types of argumentation; symptomatic argumentation

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: October 12, 2018

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more