Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
The main aim of this unit is
to provide a comprehensive analysis of argumentative texts, focusing on their structure and main features.
Our aim is to offer an
in-depth understanding of the nature and purpose of argumentative texts in both linguistic and pragmatic terms.
Our aim is to offer an in-depth understanding of the nature and purpose of argumentative texts in both linguistic and pragmatic terms. That is,
how language and textual features are used to achieve the purpose of persuading the audience to whom a rhetorical or dialectal argumentation is addressed.
persuading the audience
to whom a rhetorical or dialectal argumentation is addressed.
Argumentative style is not just a linguistic matter to be developed in the classroom setting; on the contrary,
it equips individuals with essential real-world skills, such as defending personal viewpoints or persuading an employer that one is the right applicant for a job.
In this sense, argumentative writing is highly competence-based. Written patterns
play a crucial role in language learning, facilitating the acquisition of vocabulary, syntactic patterns, and phonology, but also discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and interactional competence.
What is the main aim of this unit?
To provide a comprehensive analysis of argumentative texts, focusing on their structure and main features.
What are the linguistic and pragmatic aspects of argumentative texts?
They show how language and textual features are used to persuade an audience through rhetorical or dialectical argumentation.
Why is argumentative style important beyond the classroom?
It helps individuals defend personal viewpoints and persuade others, such as convincing an employer in a job application.
How is argumentative writing competence-based?
It develops essential skills like discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and interactional competence.
What role do written patterns play in language learning?
They facilitate the acquisition of vocabulary, syntactic patterns, phonology, and communicative competences.
Argumentation has been defined as
"the process of supporting or weakening another statement whose validity is questionable or contentious" (Hatch, 1992, p.185).
"the process of supporting or weakening another statement whose validity is questionable or contentious"
(Hatch, 1992, p.185).
In more general terms argumentative texts are concerned with
the presentation and evaluation of rhetorical or dialectal arguments that show a cause-effect relationship as established in a theory.
Argumentative texts show a classic structure of six elements:
Introduction
Explanation of the case
Outline of the argument
Proof
Refutation
Conclusion
An important feature of argumentative text structure is flexibility, i.e.,
many variations of the classic structure are admitted.
Text structure may vary depending on
the type of audience they are addressed to.
Texts addressed to a non-specialised audience
typically rely on common sense and common principles.
In contrast, texts addressed to a specialised audience
tend to focus on specific aspects for agreement or disagreement.
How does Hatch (1992) define argumentation?
As "the process of supporting or weakening another statement whose validity is questionable or contentious."
What is the general purpose of argumentative texts?
To present and evaluate rhetorical or dialectical arguments that establish a cause-effect relationship.
What are the six classic elements of an argumentative text?
Introduction
Explanation of the case
Outline of the argument
Proof
Refutation
Conclusion
What is an important structural feature of argumentative texts?
Flexibility—many variations of the classic structure are allowed.
How does the audience affect the structure of an argumentative text?
Non-specialised audience: Rely on common sense and general principles.
Specialised audience: Focus on specific aspects for agreement or disagreement.
Furthermore, argumentative discourse is influenced by
cultural constraints.
Two main types of argumentative texts are identified according to the social and rational character of argumentation:
Subjective
Scientific argumentative texts.
In subjective argumentation
The core of the argument is presented first, followed by an appeal to view facts, ideas and feelings from a specific perspective. Arguments are organised according to the impact they can produce on the audience. All reasoning is designed to produce specific conclusions.
(Subjective argumentation) Informal persuasive discourse, often illustrated through ironical or humorous comments, is
commonly found in oral discourse, including political speeches and television debates.
Informal persuasive discourse, often illustrated through
ironical or humorous comments
Informal persuasive discourse can also be found in
written discourse: newspaper articles, opinion letters and film or play review.
Scientific argumentation also known as
Objective argumentation
In scientific or objective argumentation
Similarly to subjective argumentation, the core of the argument is presented first, followed by a description of the main arguments and conclusions. Arguments are organised according to their relevance to support the conclusions.
All reasoning is exposed in detail and explicitly supported by evidence. This evidence is based on data from reliable sources.
In scientific argumentation, all reasoning is
exposed in detail and explicitly supported by evidence. This evidence is based on data from reliable sources.
Formal discourse is often illustrated with
graphs, maps and tables.
The structure of scientific argumentation is often
a mixture of expository or explanatory texts.
Scientific argumentation is commonly found in
oral discourse such as conference talks and seminars, but also in written discourse such as research papers and books on literary criticism.
What are the two main types of argumentative texts?
Subjective argumentation
Scientific (objective) argumentation
How are arguments organized in subjective argumentation?
Based on the impact they can produce on the audience, aiming to influence perspectives.
Where is subjective argumentation commonly found?
Oral discourse: Political speeches, television debates
Written discourse: Newspaper articles, opinion letters, film or play reviews
How are arguments organized in scientific argumentation?
Based on their relevance to support the conclusions, explicitly backed by evidence from reliable sources.
What features characterize scientific argumentation?
Uses formal discourse
Includes graphs, maps, and tables
Often a mix of expository and explanatory texts
Where is scientific argumentation commonly found?
Oral discourse: Conference talks, seminars
Written discourse: Research papers, books on literary criticism
Classic structure argumentative texts elements
Introduction (case presentation)
Explanation of the case
Outline of the arguments
Proof
Refutation
Conclusions
(1) Introduction (case presentation)
This is where the core argument and other basic aspects of the case are introduced
(2) Explanation of the case
This section presents background information, examples and relevant data to understand the main arguments and counterarguments.
(3) Outline of the arguments
The main arguments and counterarguments are presented according to their relevance to support the conclusions. Each argument is reviewed and explained here.
(4) Proof
Evidence to support argumentation is provided. Details, examples and information that may serve to justify arguments or counterarguments are also discussed here.
(5) Refutation
Counterarguments are discussed here in view of supporting evidence.
(6) Conclusions
A summary of the main arguments, both positive and negative, leads to the conclusions
Variations from the classic structure (Maccoun, 1983)
Zigzag solution
Argument refutation
One-sided argument
Eclectic approach
Opposition’s argument first
Other side questioned
No refutation
Zigzag solution
Each argument is discussed together with its corresponding counterarguments following a zigzag line, i.e.. in favour/against, pro/con…
Argument refutation
The focus is on refuting possible counterarguments to demonstrate their inadequacy, thereby the main argument appears as an alternative solution. It is usually followed by the proposal of a new solution.
One-sided argument
Only one point of view is presented: the main arguments. No refutations are given.
Eclectic approach
Arguments and counterarguments are analysed from a more objective perspective and conclusions from both are validated. This approach rejects some aspects while accepting others.
Opposition’s argument first
The opposition's argument is presented first, followed by a counterargument. It is commonly used to present better alternatives. The use of pointers helps to clarify the extension of the opposing argument.
Other side questioned
The opposition’s arguments are questioned but not directly refuted. It can be easily confused with an eclectic approach unless the conclusions are clearly based on the main arguments only.
No refutation
Disagreement or different point of view within the same field
Variations from the classic structure REFERENCE
Maccoun, 1983
What are the six elements of the classic argumentative text structure?
Introduction – It is the case presentation. It presents the core argument and basic aspects of the case.
Explanation of the case – Provides background information, examples, and data.
Outline of the arguments – Presents and explains main arguments and counterarguments.
Proof – Provides evidence, details, and examples to justify arguments.
Refutation – Discusses counterarguments in relation to supporting evidence.
Conclusions – Summarises main arguments and leads to a conclusion.
What is the purpose of the proof section in argumentative texts?
To provide evidence, examples, and justification for arguments or counterarguments.
What happens in the refutation stage of an argumentative text?
Counterarguments are discussed in view of supporting evidence.
What is the zigzag solution?
Each argument is discussed alongside its counterargument following a zigzag line, i.e., in favour/against
What is argument refutation?
The focus is on refuting counterarguments to demonstrate their inadequacy, often leading to a proposed new solution.
What is the one-sided argument structure?
Only one point of view is presented, without refutations.
What is the eclectic approach in argumentative texts?
Arguments and counterarguments are analysed objectively, accepting some aspects and rejecting others.
What happens when the opposition’s argument is presented first?
The opposing argument is introduced before presenting a counterargument, often used to propose better alternatives.
What is the "other side questioned" structure?
The opposition’s arguments are questioned but not directly refuted; iit can be easily confused with an ecclectic approach.
What does the "no refutation" variation involve?
It presents different viewpoints within the same field
Spontaneous argumentation develops
progressively, with changes in volume and pitch but does not always adhere to established rules.
(Spontaneous argumentation) Verbal arguments may shift to
non-verbal arguments.
(Spontaneous argumentation) formal debates progress according to
definite rules, but the debate structure depends on ritual constraints.
What is spontaneous argumentation?
A type of argumentation that develops progressively, with changes in volume and pitch, but does not always follow established rules.
How does spontaneous argumentation differ from formal debate?
Spontaneous argumentation lacks strict rules, while formal debates follow definite structures and ritual constraints.
What can spontaneous argumentation involve besides verbal arguments?
It may shift to non-verbal arguments
(spontaneous argumentation) The debate structure depends on
ritual constraints
Ritual constraints argumentat
Argumentation is accomplished in different ways across cultures.
There are many ritual constraints in argumentative texts:
For instance, one-sided and zigzag arguments are not completely acceptable in British culture, while in American culture, all arguments must be addressed and countered.
In some cultures, subtlety is emphasised. Japanese avoid sharply defined argumentative positions.
How does argumentation differ across cultures?
Different cultures have specific ritual constraints that shape how arguments are structured and presented.
How do British and American cultures differ in argumentation styles?
British culture: One-sided and zigzag arguments are not fully acceptable.
American culture: All arguments must be addressed and countered.
How is argumentation approached in Japanese culture?
Sharply defined argumentative positions are avoided.
In some cultures,
subtlety is emphasised
Some authors defend that
argumentation is not a separate rhetorical genre, but it is part of persuasive discourse (Connon & Lauer, 1985).
Connon & Lauer, 1985
Some authors defend that argumentation is not a separate rhetorical genre, but it is part of persuasive discourse
Persuasive texts are directed at
a specific audience, encouraging them to take a certain course of action, and require critical evaluation.
Persuasive texts are characterised by
their persuasive appeal, which is used to elicit co-operation from the audience and foster identification with them.
Persuasive appeal is used to
elicit co-operation from the audience and foster identification with them.
Some examples of persuasive texts are:
Advertisements
Offer leaflets
News reports
And editorials.
How do some authors define argumentation in relation to persuasive discourse?
Some authors argue that argumentation is not a separate rhetorical genre but part of persuasive discourse (Connon & Lauer, 1985).
What is the main goal of persuasive texts?
To encourage a specific audience to take a certain course of action and engage in critical evaluation.
What is a key feature of persuasive texts?
Their persuasive appeal, which fosters audience cooperation and identification.
What does persuasive appeal elicit?
Audience cooperation and identification
Give examples of persuasive texts.
Advertisements
Offer leaflets
News reports
Editorials
Over twenty types of persuasive appeals have been identified:
Four of them are ethical appeal, five are affective appeal and fourteen are logical appear (Connor and Lauer, 1985).
Types of Persuasive appeals
Ethical appeals or Ethos
Affective appeals or Pathos
Logical appeals or Logos
Ethical appeals or Ethos
It is used to show the audience that the author is a credible source.
For instance,
by choosing language that is appropriate for the audience and the topic
making the message sound unbiased.
Affective appeals or Pathos
It is used to persuade the audience by appealing to their emotions, invoking sympathy from them.
For example,
by using stories of emotional events
Logical appeals or Logos
It is used to convince an audience by use of logic or reason. For instance,
By using advanced language
Citing facts
By constructing logical arguments
What are the three main types of persuasive appeals?
Ethical appeals (Ethos) – Establishes credibility.
Affective appeals (Pathos) – Appeals to emotions.
Logical appeals (Logos) – Uses logic and reason.
What is an ethical appeal (Ethos)?
A persuasive technique that builds the author’s credibility by using appropriate language and maintaining an unbiased tone.
What is an affective appeal (Pathos)?
A persuasive technique that appeals to the audience’s emotions, often using personal stories or emotional events.
Note 
Flashcard (78)