TOPIC 34. ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS. STRUCTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS

image 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).

image Jean-Michel Adam distinguished 5 types of texts

image explanatory: to explain/analyse a phenomenon to make it understandable.

image injunctions: to make sb do sth (give instructions). image

image Narrative text: intended to tell a story, to make a past/imaginary story seem real and bring it to the present.

image argumentative texts: used to argue, convince, persuade or defend a POV trying to make the addressee share the author's perspective. image image

image Descriptive text: intended to describe, present the reader with an image of sth they cannot see but can imagine.

image image According to Van Eemeren, they are 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)

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

image In Oral argumentation, context, intonation and other semiotic instruments can be used to create the premises to convince the interlocutor

image 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.

image 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.

image 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:

The content

objective arguments are taken from reality and answer undeniable rules. These argumentations are found in the field of empirical and exact sciences. image

subjective arguments are used because the assertion is an opinion which reflects disputable conviction. These arguments are based on individual and personal values. These are disputable arguments because they cannot be empirically tested. image image

Conclusion

image Schellens use a typlogy which differentiates between:

image RESTRICTED schemes that are limited to a certain conclusion. The group restricted argumentation schemes can be divided into 3 different parts:

  • image Regularity-based: argumentation used in support of a descriptive statement about the present/past/future based on a regularly recurring empirical link
  • image rule-based argumentation used in support of a normative statement about the value of a situation or process
  • image pragmatic argumentation: leading to a statement about the desirability of intended behaviour, based on its (dis)advantages

image UNRESTRICTED forms, where he distinguished between argumentation from authority, argumentation from example and argumentation from analogy.

THEORIES OF ARGUMENTATION

image 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
  • Logos refers to logical reasoning
  • Pathos is appeal based on emotion and psychology.
    image
    They are the building blocks of persuasive argumentation.

STRUCTURE

  • a thesis and the main idea trying to convince the addressee
  • the arguments that provide the reasons or grounds.

LOGICAL

image 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: image
  • backing image : the source of information that should provide the warrant for the truth or acceptability of the arguments proposed.
  • image Qualifier: elements that give a degree of force and characterise the proposed arguments making them relative and valid.
  • image 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.
  • image Claim: opinion or hypothesis inferred from the data we have. 5 categories: Claims of fact/definition/cause/value/policy.
  • Grounds or Data image : facts image or proofs; evidence to support the claim
  • Rebuttal image: doubts or reservations about the value or opportunity of the theses. It also acknowledges the existence of different opinions and counterarguments.

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)

CHARACTERISTICS: PSA, LF&DM, OW, CONA

  • presenting pragmatic aspects analysed by speech acts (since arguing to convince implies producing an illocutionary act to lead an interlocutor to perform a 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 to address the audience and influence their emotions.

STAGES: COAC
image Van Eemeren and Grootendorst imageidentified stages of argumentative dialogue: COAC

image 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.

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

webliography

image - Clustering pattern: the writer collects the evidence in 1 place, the objections in another section and the rebuttal in a third section

image - Alternating pattern: the writer shifts between evidence, objection and rebuttal for each separate piece of evidence before moving to the next.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). "The Uses of Argument". Cambridge University Press
  • Schellens, P. J. (1985). "Reasonable Arguments": An Examination of Standards for Critical Readers"

image 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.

  • Loureda, O. (2003). "Introduction to Text Typology"

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.

different specific illocutionary acts can be related to different stages of the argumentative process:

  • confrontation to state the values of a thesis image
  • taking a stand by the antagonist (disagreeing) or by the protagonist (accepting the challenge) image
  • arguing: accepting (or not) arguments image
  • image conforming our own opinions: correcting or showing doubts about the final opinion and state.

image opening: interlocutors decide to resolve their differences by agreeing on rules

image argumentation: they defend their standpoint by putting forward arguments to counter any objections or doubts.

image 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

image 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. image

situationality: factors that make a text relevant to the situation image

informativity: the extent to which the occurrences of the text are (un)expected image

acceptability: the receiver accepts the relevance of the message image

intentionality: the writer's attitude; to produce a cohesive and coherent text. image

coherence: logical connections of the meanings that make a text understandable.

cohesion: grammatical/lexical linkings within the elements of a txt image image

ARISTOTLE: ELP

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). "The Uses of Argument"

image image 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: argument related to the issue
  • Acceptability: justifiable premises
  • 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

  • image Dialectification: argumentation is appropriate only when the arguments are used to support the standpoint against another person.
  • image Externalisation: argumentation needs a standpoint and an opposition to the standpoint.
  • image Socialisation: arguments as an expression of people's thought processes; part of interaction in social context.
  • image functionalisation: argumentation has the general purposive act of managing the resolution of disagreement in a rational, verbal manner.