The strategic use of argumentation from example in plenary debates in the European Parliament

Examples or exemplary cases may perform an important role in parliamentary
debates. Members of Parliament make use of examples, not only to elucidate complex policies or to illustrate proposed legislation, but also to justify policies and legislation. It may, however, be difficult to determine if an example or an exemplary case that has been brought forward in a parliamentary debate has an argumentative function or not. Members of parliament, being experienced debaters, appear to be aware of this difficulty. They may even try to profit from a possible rhetorical advantage of this problematic distinction, while at the same time attempting to act as reasonable participants in the debate. Apart from that, they may also strive for an optimal rhetorical result in the actual choice of an example. As a framework for the analysis of the strategic use of examples in parliamentary debates, I shall make use of van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s (1999, 2002) concept of strategic manoeuvring, by which they mean the attempt by the parties engaged in argumentative discourse "to meet their dialectical obligations without sacrificing their rhetorical aims." In this contribution the focus will be on strategic manoeuvring as it manifests itself in the institutional setting of the European parliament.