Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
TOPIC 34. ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS. STRUCTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS, webliography…
TOPIC 34. ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS. STRUCTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS
Randolph Quirk
saw text as a stretch of language which makes coherent sense in the context of its use. He stated that texts must be linguistically, pragmatically and semantically correct since they are made of meanings coded in words and structures (which will be sound or written symbols).
Jean-Michel Adam
distinguished
5 types of texts
explanatory
: to explain/analyse a phenomenon to make it understandable.
injunctions
: to make sb do sth (give instructions).
Narrative
text: intended to tell a story, to make a past/imaginary story seem real and bring it to the present.
argumentative
texts: used to argue, convince, persuade or defend a POV trying to make the addressee share the author's perspective.
According to Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, argumentation is a
verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing the acceptability
of a controversial standpoint for the listener/reader by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify the standpoint before a rational judge.
In argumentation people use words and sentences to state or deny sth, as well as (non)verbal communication. It is always related to a standpoint (The
goal
of argumentation is to
justify one's standpoint or to refute someone else's
)
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004).
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
.
TYPES
can be singled out depending on the medium or content of argumentation.
Within the written/oral message it's necessary to distinguish between different types of texts that will require a different kind of argumentative structure that will determine the type of argument and of organisation as well as the linguistic indicators used to mark the argumentation.
the
medium
In
Oral argumentation
, context, intonation and other
semiotic instruments can be used to
create the premises to
convince
the interlocutor
Discussion
: most usual argumentation in our
everyday
life. This is led by
emotional
reactions and
behaviour
and by extralinguistic elements. It demands that the argumentation is understandable and its organisation and value clear, it also requires that the protagonists make their attitude clear and express it in positive or negative terms with respect to the arguments.
lectures and lessons
: teachers present
opinions
supported by arguments. The interlocutors are in an inferior position, they find it harder to hold a critical position.
Oral debate
is driven by: interlocutors' emotions and the public's reaction
Emotional
factors, how the
interlocutors
and the
public
are considered, and the kind of place where the discussion is taking place, play an important role.
The true
success
of this argumentative act isn't assessed in relation to the change of opinion of the different participants but
in relation to the public's reaction
.
written argumentation
, where each component must be made
explicit and marked
with the appropriate linguistic forms to make their function clear.
Writers use different patterns to organise their thoughts as they compose the argument. The most
2 common patterns of presenting evidence
are:
-
Clustering pattern:
the writer
collects
the evidence in 1 place, the objections in another section and the rebuttal
in a third section
-
Alternating pattern
: the writer
shifts
between objection and rebuttal for each separate piece of evidence
before moving
to the next.
The
content
objective
arguments are taken from
reality
and answer
undeniable rules
. These argumentations are found in the field of empirical and
exact sciences
.
subjective
arguments are used because the assertion is an opinion which reflects disputable conviction. These
arguments are based on personal values
. These are
disputable
arguments because they cannot be empirically tested.
Conclusion
Schellens use a typlogy which differentiates between:
RESTRICTED schemes
that are limited to a certain conclusion. The group restricted argumentation schemes can be divided into 3 different parts:
Regularity-based
: argumentation used in support of a descriptive statement about the present/past/future based on a regularly recurring empirical link
rule-based
argumentation used in support of a normative statement about the value of a situation or process
pragmatic
argumentation: leading to a statement about the desirability of intended behaviour, based on its (dis)advantages
UNRESTRICTED
forms, where he distinguished between argumentation from
authority
, argumentation from
example
and argumentation from
analogy
.
Schellens, P. J. (1985). "Reasonable Arguments": An Examination of Standards for Critical Readers"
THEORIES
OF ARGUMENTATION
Aristotle was the first author to formulate principles on how language is used to persuade and he descibed 3 main forms of rethoric to be persuasive:
Ethos
comprises the
character
, the
reputation
and the
credibility
of the author. A strong ethos makes the audience trust the speaker's argument.
Logos
refers to
logical reasoning
to ensure arguments are coherent thus valid.
Pathos
is appeal based on
emotion
and psychology to create engagement and strenthen an argument
They're building blocks of persuasive argumentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oUfOh_CgHQ
https://youtu.be/4ZQZXOVpc_c?t=119
ARISTOTLE: ELP
According to Toulmin, all kinds of argumentation can be
rational
, and their rules
depend on the nature
of the problems they're presented for. He stated that argumentation has a
justifying function
.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). "The Uses of Argument"
The version of Van Eemeren and Grootendorst of the argumentation theory (the
pragma-dialectical theory
) is currently the most popular. They started studying
argumentation as a social activity for resolving differences of opinion
. This theory provides
criteria
for evaluating the quality of arguments based on their:
Relevance
: arguments must be related to the issue
Acceptability
: premises must be justifiable
Sufficiency
: premises must adequately support the conclusion
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004).
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
.
VE&G:P-D.
CRITERIA: RAS
4 M-TH Princs: DESF
According to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Argumentation starts with
4 Meta-Theoretical principles
: DESF
Dialectification
: argumentation is appropriate only when the
arguments are used to support the standpoint
against another person.
Externalisation
:
argumentation
needs a
standpoint and an opposition
to the standpoint.
Socialisation
: arguments as an expression of people's
thought
processes; part of interaction in
social
context.
functionalisation
: argumentation has the general purposive act of
managing the resolution of disagreement
in a rational, verbal manner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3p4VtBf3Q
Descriptive
text: intended to describe, present the reader with an image of sth they cannot see but can imagine.
For Loureda (2003), each type of text incorporates a number of properties that distinguish it from others, making it a model for the addresser to choose.
STRUCTURE
a thesis and the main idea trying to convince the addressee
the arguments that provide the reasons or grounds.
LOGICAL
Toulmin's Argumentative Model explains the structure of an argumentative text from a logical perspective. It's used to analyse and construct arguments.
According to Toulmin, an argumentation can be made up of 6 categories:
backing
: the
source of information
that should
provide
the warrant for the
truth
or
acceptability
of the arguments proposed.
Qualifier
: elements that give a degree of
force
and characterise the proposed arguments making them relative and valid.
Warrant
:
reasoning
connecting data and claim as a
general rule to justify an opinion
once some arguments are possessed. It may be based on social/historical/cultural/moral dimensions and they may be shared by all humans or group inside a society.
Claim
:
opinion
or hypothesis inferred from the data we have. 5 categories: Claims of fact/definition/cause/value/policy.
Grounds or
Data
: facts
or proofs;
evidence
to support the claim
Rebuttal
:
doubts
or reservations about the value or opportunity of the theses. It also acknowledges the existence of different opinions and
counterarguments
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYu4S1c4wao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWnEbMZ0IaA
SIMPLE AND COMPLEX
Simple argumentative act
is one made of one opinion and an argument
Complex argumentative acts
are made of an opinion and (+)1 arguments. One can find multiple argumentation (complex and may be made up of an opinion and +1 arguments at the same level and coordinated, sometimes of a different nature in favour or against this opinion) or brunch argumentation (if the complex argumentation is made of an opinion and a series of arguments that are assertions coming from an underlying argumentation since they resemble a scale or tree with different levels)
STAGES
: COAC
Van Eemeren and Grootendorst
identified stages of argumentative dialogue: COAC
different specific illocutionary acts can be related to different
stages of the argumentative process
:
confrontation
to state the values of a thesis
taking a stand
by the antagonist (disagreeing) or by the protagonist (accepting the challenge)
arguing
: accepting (or not) arguments
conforming our own opinions
: correcting or showing doubts about the final opinion and state.
opening
: interlocutors decide to resolve their differences by
agreeing on rules
argumentation
: they
defend
their standpoint by putting forward arguments to counter any objections or doubts.
confrontation
: presentation of the
problem
:
difference of opinion
concluding
:
solution
of the problem when closing conditions are met. In this final stage, they evaluate to what extent their initial difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favor
https://youtu.be/vJd9A3DReuE
CHARACTERISTICS
: SA, LF&DM, 1/2, WOP, CONA
presenting
pragmatic aspects analysed by speech acts
(since arguing to convince implies producing an illocutionary act leading to the addressee's perlocutionary act)
making use of
linguistic forms
(exponents that indicate the communicative function of the statement through intonation, emphasis, performative/modal verbs or chunks:
In my view
) and
discourse markers
(each speech act is characterised by these textual connectives such as:
Firstly, indeed
)
1st and 2nd person
Words to express opinion
: verbs (I think), adjectives (crucial), adverbs (undoubtedly, clearly)
conative function of language through the directive illocutionary act
to address the audience and influence their emotions.
REFERENCES
Adam, J-M. (1992). "Linguistic and Textual Analysis"
Beaugrande, R. (2014). "Discourse Analysis: An Introduction "
Quirk, R. & Greenbaum, S. (1973). "A University Grammar of English ".
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004).
A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
. Cambridge University Press
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). "The Uses of Argument". Cambridge University Press
Loureda, O. (2003). "Introduction to Text Typology"
Loureda (2003) defines texts as oral or written speech acts produced by an individual for an addressee, fulfilling a definite sense in a specific situation.
Beaugrande
defined text as a communicative occurrence that form an organised whole which meets
7 standards of textuality
: coherence, cohesion, acceptability, situationality, informativity, intertextuality and intentionality.
constitutive principles
Beaugrande defines texts as communicative occurrences which form an organised whole that meets
7 standards
and function as constitutive principles of communication: they create and define the form of identifiable behaviour as textual communicating.
intertextuality
: factors that make the use of one text dependent upon knowledge of (+)1 or + previously encountered txts.
situationality
: factors that make a text relevant to the situation
informativity
: the extent to which the occurrences of the text are (un)expected
acceptability
: the receiver accepts the relevance of the message
intentionality
: the writer's attitude; to produce a cohesive and coherent text.
coherence
: logical connections of the meanings that make a text understandable.
cohesion
: grammatical/lexical linkings within the elements of a txt
https://youtu.be/7Ujtenxk6Xk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDdWaENPq_0
webliography
www.adideandalucia.es
www.juntadeandalucia.es
www.boe.es
www.britishcouncil.es
www. britannica.com
Cambridge
Dictionary
Schellens, P. J. (1985). "Reasonable Arguments": An Examination of Standards for Critical Readers"
