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

Abstract

Abstract A recent line of argumentation research has focused on the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns – 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.