For best experience please turn on javascript and use a modern browser!
You are using a browser that is no longer supported by Microsoft. Please upgrade your browser. The site may not present itself correctly if you continue browsing.

Dr. H.J. (Jose) Plug

Faculty of Humanities
Capaciteitsgroep Taalbeheersing, Argumentatietheorie en Retorica
Photographer: onbekend
Visiting address
  • Spuistraat 134
  • Room number: 5.07
Postal address
  • Postbus 1637
    1000 BP Amsterdam
Contact details
  • Profiel

    José Plug is senior researcher at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam and director of the Master's programme Dutch Language and Culture. She obtained her PhD doing interdisciplinary research on argumentation in legal decisions. In addition to legal argumentation, her research interests are political argumentation, the theory of debate and visual argumentation. Over the past few years she co-organised several conferences on Debate and on Legal argumentation. 

    Teaching

    José Plug teaches different courses in bachelor and master programmes of the faculty of Humanities of the University of Amsterdam. Until 2002 she was resercher and lecturer at the Law faculty of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam (EUR) and guest lecturer at the Law faculty of the University of the Netherlands Antilles (UNA), where she taught 'legal writing', 'legal argumentation analysis' and 'oral pleading'.

    Website ISSA conference
    International Conference on Legal Argumentation: Reasoned Dissensus and Common Ground (2020)

    (2016) Legal argumentation and the rule of law

    Modern legal systems are characterized by a tension between two commonplaces: the Rule of Law on the one hand, and the arguable character of law on the other. The Rule of Law calls for legal certainty, predictability and reasonableness; the argumentative character of law implies room for rational disagreement. In this book, expert scholars come together to offer interdisciplinary approaches to debate this tension and its possible reconciliation. Central in their perspective is that reconciliation is possible when the Rule of Law also incorporates rules for reason-giving. Reason-giving should be part of a substantive conception of the Rule of Law. Requiring that legal decision-makers give reasons furthers reasonable outcomes. The analysis of the ideal of rational argumentation and the ideal of the Rule of Law show how insights of two traditions are connected.

    (2012) Gewogen oordelen. Essays over argumentatie en recht. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

    Het onderzoek naar juridische argumentatie is een typische interdisciplinaire activiteit waarbij de jurist in dialoog met de argumentatietheoreticus, de logicus, de psycholoog, de filosoof en de informaticaspecialist antwoorden formuleert op nieuwe vragen. Vragen over o.a. de legitimiteit van rechtspraak, het bewijs in strafzaken en de kwaliteit van wetgeving, kunnen zo vanuit verschillende perspectieven worden benaderd. Gewogen oordelen biedt een representatief beeld van het onderzoek naar juridische argumentatie in Nederland.

    (2009) Argumentation and the Application of Legal Rules . Amsterdam: Rozenberg.

    (with Feteris, E.T. and H. Kloosterhuis Eds.).

    In modern legal systems there is a tension between the rule
    of law and the arguable character of law. As a consequence
    sound legal argumentation is crucial for the legitimacy of legal
    decisions. Argumentation and the Application of Legal Rules is
    a collection of essays on the role of argumentation inlegal
    discourse. The essays discuss the use of interpretative
    arguments, argumentation schemes, goal- and case bound
    reasoning and strategic manoeuvring.

    (2008)     Alles afwegende ... Bijdragen aan het vijfde symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 22 juni 2007 . Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. (co-edited with E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, J.A. Pontier)

    (2004)     In het licht van deze overwegingen . Bijdragen aan het vierde symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 27 juni 2003. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. (co-edited with E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis and J.A. Pontier )

    (2000)     Met Recht en Reden . Bijdragen aan het derde symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 18 juni 1999. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. (co-edited with E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis and J.A. Pontier )

    (1997)    Op goede gronden . Bijdragen aan het tweede symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 14 juni 1996. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. (co-edited with E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis and J.A. Pontier).

    (1994)   Met redenen omkleed . Bijdragen aan het symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 11 juni 1993. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. (co-edited with E.T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, J.A. Pontier).

  • Publications

    2023

    • Plug, H. J. (in press). The use of literary references in the justification of separate opinions. In Legal Argumentation: Reasoned Dissensus and Common Ground Eleven international publishing.
    • Plug, H. J., & Feteris, E. T. (2023). RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF LEGAL ARGUMENTATION AND PROTOTYPICAL ARGUMENTATIVE PATTERNS: A PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL PERSPECTIVE. Manuscript submitted for publication. In L. Duarte d'Almeida (Ed.), Research Handbook on Legal Argumentation Edward Elgar.
    • Plug, H. J., Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., & Smith, C. (Eds.) (in press). Legal Argumentation: Reasoned Dissensus and Common Ground. Eleven international publishing.

    2022

    2021

    2020

    • Plug, H. J. (2020). Separate opinions as argumentative activity type. In C. Dutilh Novaes, H. Jansen, J. A. van Laar, & B. Verheij (Eds.), Reason to Dissent: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. III, pp. 267-278). (Studies in Logic. Logic and Argumentation; Vol. 87). College Publications. https://www.collegepublications.co.uk/logic/sla/?00014 [details]
    • Plug, H. J., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2020). From fact-checking to rhetoric-checking: extending methods for evaluating populist discourse. In I. van der Geest, H. Jansen, & B. van Klink (Eds.), Vox populi: Populism as a rhetorical and democratic challenge (pp. 236-252). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901412.00023 [details]
    • Wackers, D. Y. M., Plug, H. J., & Steen, G. J. (2020). Violence metaphors for cancer: Pragmatic and symptomatic arguments against. Metaphor and the Social World, 10(1), 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.19005.wac [details]

    2019

    2018

    • Plug, H. J. (2018). Challenging Judicial Impartiality: When Accusations of Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring Derail. In S. Oswald, & D. Mailat (Eds.), Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 2, pp. 631-646). (Studies in logic; Vol. 77). College Publications. [details]

    2017

    • Plug, H. J. (2017). Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring: An argumentative analysis of criticism on political cartoons. In C. Ilie, & G. Garzone (Eds.), Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 317-337). (Argumentation in Context; Vol. 10). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.14plu [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2017). The strategic use of argumentation from example in plenary debates in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren, & W. Peng (Eds.), Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 159-176). (Argumentation in context; No. 12). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12 [details]

    2016

    • Plug, H. J. (2016). Administrative Judicial Decisions as a Hybrid Argumentative Activity Type. Informal logic, 36(3), 333-348. http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/4722/3980 [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2016). Argumentative Contributions to the Settlement of Conflicts in Administrative Judicial Decisions. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law (pp. 171-182). The Hague: Eleven international publishing. [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2016). Strategic Maneuvering in Administrative Judicial Decisions: Groundwork for Argumentative Patterns. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 (Vol. 2, pp. 15-27). (Studies in Logic; Vol. 63). College Publications. [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2016). Strategisch manoeuvreren met 'role shifts' in bestuursrechtelijke uitspraken: de complexe rol van de rechter. In D. Van De Mieroop, L. Buysse, R. Coesemans, & P. Gillaerts (Eds.), De macht van de taal: taalbeheersingsonderzoek in Nederland en Vlaanderen (pp. 205-218). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco. [details]

    2015

    • Plug, H. J. (2015). Transparency in legal argumentation: adapting to a composite audience in administrative judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 121-132). (Argumentation in context; No. 9). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.07plu [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (Accepted/In press). Criticism on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring. An analysis of objections to political cartoons. In C. Ilie, & G. Garzone (Eds.), Argumentation in real and virtual environments. Cross-disciplinary perspectives Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    2013

    • Plug, H. J. (2013). Manoeuvring strategically in political cartoons: transforming visualizations of metaphors. In H. van Belle, P. Gillaerts, B. van Gorp, D. van de Mieroop, & K. Rutten (Eds.), Verbal and visual rhetoric in a media world (pp. 433-443). (Rhetoric in Society). Leiden University Press. [details]

    2012

    • Plug, H. J. (2012). Obscurities in the Formulation of Legal Argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 2(1), 126-142. http://www.ijlld.com/journal-index/2012-index/92-ijlld-21-2012 [details]
    • Plug, H. J., Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., Pontier, J. A., & Smith, C. E. (2012). Inleiding. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, J. A. Pontier, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Gewogen oordelen: essays over argumentatie en recht: bijdragen aan het zesde symposium juridische argumentatie 24 juni 2011 (pp. 9-20). Boom Juridische uitgevers. [details]
    • Plug, J. (2012). In het bos van het parlementaire debat: de argumentatieve functie van citaten voor interpretatieve beslissingen. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Gewogen oordelen: essays over argumentatie en recht: bijdragen aan het zesde symposium juridische argumentatie 24 juni 2011 (pp. 211-222). Boom Juridische uitgevers. [details]

    2011

    • Feteris, E., Groarke, L., & Plug, J. (2011). Strategic maneuvering with visual arguments in political cartoons: a pragma-dialectical analysis of the use of topoi that are based on common cultural heritage. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 59-74). John Benjamins. [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2011). Parrying ad-hominem arguments in parliamentary debates. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1538-1546). Rozenberg/Sic Sat. [details]

    2010

    • Plug, H. J. (2010). Ad-hominem arguments in Dutch and European parliamentary debates: strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European parliaments under scrutiny: Discourse strategies and interaction practices (pp. 305-328). (Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture; No. 38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2010). Institutional Boundaries on the Evaluation of Argumentation in Legislative Discussions. Legisprudence, 4(1), 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521467.2010.11424701 [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2010). The strategic use of argumentation from example in plenary debates in the European Parliament. Controversia, 7(1), 38-56. [details]

    2009

    • Plug, H. J. (2009). The argumentative use of examples in legislative discussions: the burqa-ban case. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, & H. J. Plug (Eds.), Argumentation and the application of legal rules (pp. 104-121). Sic Sat. [details]
    • Plug, H. J., Feteris, E. T., & Kloosterhuis, H. (2009). Introduction. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, & H. J. Plug (Eds.), Argumentation and the Application of Legal Rules (pp. 1-12). Sic Sat.

    2008

    2007

    • Plug, H. J. (2007). Evaluating attacks on the Credibility of Politicians in Political debates. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1073-1077). Sic Sat. [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2007). Pitfalls in the evaluation of argumentation in the legislative process. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & D. M. Godden (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: OSSA 2007 Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA7/papersandcommentaries/118/ [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2007). Problemen bij de evaluatie van argumentatie in het wetgevingsproces. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, & J. A. Pontier (Eds.), Alles Afwegende...: Bijdragen aan het vijfde symposium Juridische Argumentatie (pp. 223-231). Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.

    2006

    • Plug, H. J. (2006). "Vergeef me de beeldspraak" . Verontschuldigingen voor metaforen in politieke debatten. In B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henekmans (Eds.), De redelijkheid zelve. Tien pragma-dialectische opstellen voor Frans van Eemeren (pp. 131-144). Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.
    • Plug, H. J. (2006). Ad hominem-argumentatie in parlementaire debatten. In H. Hoeken, B. Hendriks, & P. J. Schellens (Eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 2 (pp. 263-273). Van Gorcum. https://webwinkel.vangorcum.nl/NL_toonBoek.asp?PublID=4267-0 [details]
    • Plug, H. J. (2006). Reconstructing and Evaluating Genetic Arguments in Judicial Decisions. Argumentation, 19(4), 447-458.

    2005

    • Plug, H. J. (2005). Evaluating References to the Intention of the Legislator. In L. J. Wintgens (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Legislation. Essays in Legisprudence (pp. 318-330). (Applied Legal Philosophy). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    2004

    • Plug, H. J. (2004). Reconstructing the weight of legal arguments. In J. A. Blair, D. Farr, H. V. Hansen, R. H. Johnson, & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Informal Logic at 25: proceedings of the Windsor Conference OSSA.
    • Plug, H. J., Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., & Pontier, J. A. (2004). In het licht van deze overwegingen. In Bijdragen aan het vierde symposium Juridische Argumentatie, Rotterdam 27 juni 2003 Nijmegen: Ars Aequi. [details]

    2003

    • Plug, H. J. (2003). Evaluating unclarity in judicial decisions. Violations of the usage rule in legal argumentation. In F. H. Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & F. H. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the study of Argumentation (pp. 845-851). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    2002

    • Plug, J. (2002). Maximally argumentative analysis of judicial argumentation. In F. Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 261-270). Amsterdam, Virginia: Sic Sat/Newport News, Vale Press. [details]

    2000

    • Plug, H. J. (2000). ‘Voors en tegens in de motivering: selectiecriteria voor contra-argumentatie'. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, & J. A. Pontier (Eds.), Met Recht en Reden (pp. 85-95). Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.
    • Plug, J. (2000). Indicators of obiter dicta. A pragma-dialectical analysis of textual clues for the reconstruction of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8(2-3), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008327715564 [details]

    1995

    • Plug, H. J. (1995). Wat wordt ten overvloede overwogen? De functie van overwegingen ten overvloede in rechterlijke beslissingen. Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging, (1), 5-11.

    1994

    • Plug, H. J. (1994). Reconstructing complex argumentation in judicial decisions. In F. H. Van Eemeren, & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 246-254). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    1991

    • Plug, H. J. (1991). Overwegingen over de 'overwegende-dat'-vorm. In Juridische argumentatie in analyse: Opstellen over argumentatie en recht (pp. 121-133). Wolters-Noordhoff.
    • Plug, H. J., & Kloosterhuis, H. (1991). Het analyseren en beoordelen van argumentatie in rechterlijke uitspraken. In F. H. van Eemeren, & E. T. Feteris (Eds.), Juridische argumentatie in analyse: Opstellen over argumentatie en recht (pp. 103-121). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

    2016

    • Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., Plug, H. J., & Smith, C. E. (Eds.) (2016). Legal argumentation and the rule of law. Eleven international publishing. [details]
    • Feteris, E., Kloosterhuis, H., Plug, H. J., & Smith, C. (2016). Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law. In E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law (pp. 1-16). The Hague: Eleven international publishing. [details]

    2012

    • Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., Plug, H. J., Pontier, J. A., & Smith, C. E. (2012). Gewogen oordelen: essays over argumentatie en recht: bijdragen aan het Zesde Symposium Juridische Argumentatie 24 juni 2011. Boom Juridische uitgevers. [details]

    2009

    • Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., & Plug, H. J. (2009). Argumentation and the application of legal rules. Sic Sat. [details]

    2007

    • Plug, H. J. (2007). Commentary on Rich Friemann: 'Dialectical Obligations of Serial Arguers'. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & D. M. Godden (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground: OSSA 2007 Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA7/papersandcommentaries/48/ [details]
    • Pontier, J. A., Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., & Plug, H. J. (Eds.) (2007). 'Alles afwegende....' : bijdragen aan het Vijfde Symposium Juridische Argumentatie 22 juni 2007 te Rotterdam. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri. [details]

    2002

    • Plug, J. (2002). [Review of: P. van der Geer (2001) De kunst van het debat]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 24(2), 174-175. [details]

    2000

    • Feteris, E. T., Kloosterhuis, H., Pontier, J. A., & Plug, J. (2000). Met recht en reden. Bijdragen aan het derde symposium juridische argumentatie. Rotterdam 18 juni 1999. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi. [details]

    1996

    • Feteris, E. T., van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, D. C., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., Kloosterhuis, H., ... Plug, H. J. (1996). Oefenboek bij "Argumenteren voor juristen". Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. [details]
    • Feteris, E. T., van Eemeren, F. H., Kloosterhuis, H., & Plug, H. J. (1996). Een pragma-dialectische benadering van juridische argumentatie. Taalbeheersing, 18(3). [details]
    • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Feteris, E. T., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., Kloosterhuis, H., & Plug, H. J. (1996). Argumenteren voor juristen. Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. [details]

    1993

    • Plug, H. J., & Kloosterhuis, H. (1993). Het redelijke debat. Argumentatie in juridische, politieke en maatschappelijke discussies. Amsterdam: Waterland van Wezel.

    1991

    • Plug, H. J., & Kloosterhuis, H. (1991). Reaktie op Willem Witteveen, de mogelijkheden van de retorica. Recht en Kritiek, 17, 99-101.
    • van Eemeren, F. H., Feteris, E. T., Grootendorst, R., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., Kloosterhuis, H., ... Plug, H. J. (1991). Argumenteren voor juristen. Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten. 2e, herz. dr. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. [details]

    2013

    • Plug, J. (2013). [Review of: Y.M. Tonnard (2011) Getting an issue on the table: A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate]. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(3), 343-345. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.3.04plu [details]

    2009

    • van den Hoven, P., & Plug, J. (2009). Wat Promis kan leren over de begrijpelijkheid van de rechtstaal. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(18), 1156-1159. Article 870. [details]

    2005

    • Plug, H. J., van Eemeren, F. H., Feteris, E. T., van Haaften, T., & Kloosterhuis, H. (2005). Argumenteren voor juristen: Het analyseren en schrijven van juridische betogen en beleidsteksten 3e herziene druk. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof.

    1996

    • van der Tol, M. C., van Eemeren, F. H., Feteris, E. T., Grootendorst, R., van Haaften, T., den Harder, W., ... Plug, H. J. (1996). Argumenteren voor juristen; oefenboek. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. [details]

    Media appearance

    • Plug, H. . (03-12-2019). AboutLaw: Podcast voor juristen. Juridische Argumentatie.

    2000

    2021

    • Wackers, D. Y. M. & Plug, H. J. (2-6-2021). Expressions of resistance to violence metaphors for cancer in online newspapers and blogs. Universiteit van Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.21942/uva.14714130.v1
    • Wackers, D. Y. M., Steen, G. J. & Plug, H. J. (8-1-2021). Standpoints of resistance against violence metaphors for cancer.docx. Universiteit van Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.21942/uva.13525616.v1
    This list of publications is extracted from the UvA-Current Research Information System. Questions? Ask the library or the Pure staff of your faculty / institute. Log in to Pure to edit your publications. Log in to Personal Page Publication Selection tool to manage the visibility of your publications on this list.
  • Ancillary activities
    • No ancillary activities
edit contact information   edit profile page