Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices

Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices

Introduction

Extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory posits that engagement in argumentative discourse is inherently strategic. This theory emphasizes the concept of strategic manoeuvring, which involves balancing rhetorical effectiveness with dialectical reasonableness in discussions. The primary objectives during such discussions can be categorized into four key stages: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and conclusion.

Three Manifestations of Strategic Manoeuvring:

1. Choices from Topical Potential: Involves selecting topics that leverage the audience's interests and knowledge.

2. Audience-Directed Framing of Discussion Moves: Adjusting discussion tactics based on the perceived beliefs and attitudes of the audience.

3. Use of Presentational Devices: Incorporating various rhetorical devices to enhance the message's impact.

A systematic stylistic analysis is crucial for identifying and evaluating these argumentative strategies.

Argumentative Strategies (van Eemeren 2010; 2018)

Definition:

Argumentative strategies can be defined as coordinated and coherent sets of strategic manoeuvres aimed at achieving dialectical and rhetorical results in discourse.

Distinction Between Types of Strategies:

Strategies can be distinguished based on:

• Context-Dependent Characteristics: Different contexts such as court cases or parliamentary debates may call for unique strategies.

• Consistency Across Discussion Stages: How strategies may evolve or remain consistent through various stages of the discourse.

• Audience Persuasion: The difference in strategies when aiming to persuade an actual opponent versus a third-party audience.

Categories of Strategies:

• Confrontational Strategies: Tactics that focus on opposing views and challenging opponents directly.

• Opening Strategies: Approaches aimed at initiating discussions effectively to garner attention and set the tone.

• Argumentational Strategies: Techniques used during the core of the argument to develop and justify positions thoroughly.

• Concluding Strategies: Methods employed to wrap up discussions and reinforce key points persuasively.

In-depth analysis is essential for accurately evaluating argumentative discourse, as different strategies yield varying degrees of effectiveness.

Linguistic-Stylistic Analysis

Objective:

The objective of linguistic-stylistic analysis is to scrutinize linguistic choices that lead to effective formulations of discussion moves.

Key Aspects of Stylistic Choices:

• Conspicuous Choices: This includes the deliberate incorporation of metaphors, hyperbole, or other notable linguistic features that enhance persuasion.

• Ordinary Language Devices: Utilization of everyday language elements that contribute to argumentative effectiveness while remaining accessible.

Importance of Identifying Linguistic Choices:

Understanding how stylistic choices shape the perspective and effectiveness of an argumentative move is crucial. A systematic analysis, ideally employing a checklist approach, assists in this evaluation.

Methodological Principles for Linguistic-Stylistic Analysis:

1. Using a Checklist of Linguistic Categories: Organizing linguistic features for systematic evaluation. ### Checklist of Linguistic Categories 1. **Conspicuous Choices** - Identify notable linguistic features such as metaphors, hyperbole, and other stylistic devices. - Evaluate how these features enhance persuasion. 2. **Ordinary Language Devices** - Analyze the use of everyday language elements. - Consider how they contribute to argumentative effectiveness while remaining accessible. 3. **Strategic Stylistic Choices** - Examine specific stylistic devices used at various discussion stages (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). - Assess their strategic contribution to the overall argument. 4. **Comparative Analysis** - Compare different examples of discourse to establish best practices. - Identify how stylistic choices differ in various contexts or among speakers. 5. **Communicative Effects** - Analyze both semantic and pragmatic implications of language choices. - Determine how linguistic features shape the perspective and effectiveness of argumentative moves.

2. Working Comparatively: Analyzing different examples of discourse to establish best practices.

3. Establishing Communicative Effects: Conducting analyses that consider both semantic and pragmatic implications of language choices.

Methodology for Stylistic Analysis

• Reconstruct the argumentative discourse according to the established discussion stages (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding).

• Identify strategic stylistic choices systematically:

  • Implement both bottom-up and top-down analyses to capture a comprehensive view.

  • Identify initial stylistic devices and assess their strategic contribution to the overall argument.

  • Track argumentative strategies throughout discourse to evaluate how coordinated stylistic choices influence discussion outcomes.

Case Study: Geert Wilders in Dutch Parliament

This case study provides a significant insight into the argumentative strategies employed by MP Geert Wilders. Notable characteristics of Wilders' strategies include:

• A confrontational approach that limits opportunities for meaningful argument exchange.

• Specific linguistic techniques:

  • Relative Absence of Subordinate Clauses: This technique frames his standpoints as self-evident factual claims, removing ambiguity.

  • Extreme Use of Semantic Scale: Hyperbolic language is employed strategically to evade nuanced discussion, framing issues in black-and-white terms.

  • Systematic Use of Definite Articles: Wilders' discourse often creates univocal categories, which restricts discussion around diverse perspectives.

  • Implicitness: His style tends toward avoiding explicit positions, thereby complicating direct engagement from opponents.

Comparative analysis also reveals significant differences in stylistic choices among parliament members, highlighting Wilders' unique and effective approach to exchange.

Conclusion

The systematic identification of argumentative strategies is invaluable for understanding the persuasive power of discourse and the dynamics of discussions. A detailed analysis of presentational devices, particularly linguistic ones, is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of argumentative strategies. Despite inherent challenges, the adoption of a linguistic-stylistic method offers profound insights into the fabric of argumentative discourse, thereby enriching academic and practical understanding of communication.