TOPIC 34: ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS. STRUCTURE AND CHARACTERISTICS.

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS

3. TYPES OF ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS

4. THEORIES OF ARGUMENTATION

5. STRUCTURE

6. CHARACTERISTICS

7. CONCLUSION

8. BIBLIOGRPAHY

1. INTRODUCTION
In discourse analysis, there are 5 (or sometimes 6) types of text: narrative, descriptive, injunctive, explanatory-
expository, dialogic and finally argumentative, which may be defined as a text seeking to support or weaken
statements whose validity is questionable. Persuading is the main goal of this kind of texts. Unlike with narration
and description, with persuasion, the writer seeks to affect the reader's view, beliefs or ideas. The main purpose is the
effect upon the reader.
The aim of this unit is to present the issue of argumentative texts in terms of the different types in which they are
classified, their structure, characteristics and functions.
2. ARGUMENTATIVE TEXTS

According to Van Eemeren, argumentation is “a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or
decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting forward a
constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge”.

Therefore, we can say that argumentation is:

• a verbal activity

• accompanied by nonverbal communication

• a social activity, which in principle is directed to other people

• an activity of reason, since people place their considerations within the realm of reason

The goal of argumentation is:

• to justify one’s standpoint or

• to refute someone else’s.

There are different typologies according to different criteria.

3.1. Types according to the medium

a) Oral Argumentation

In this kind of argumentation, the context, the appearance and paralinguistic elements play an important role.
Intonation and other semiotic instruments (even a look) can be used to create the premises in order to convince the
interlocutors.

Examples:

• Oral Debates: Those taking part in the debate must, find useful arguments to maintain or reinforce the thesis
they are defending, or change and adjust their opinion according to the objections they are progressively
receiving. They are more structured due to time limitations.

• Discussion: The most usual argumentation is the one we find in everyday life. This is perhaps the most
interesting, complex and the least systematic argumentation, full of fallacies and sometimes not very proper
argumentative strategies, led by emotional reactions and behavior and by extra-linguistic elements: social
prestige, feelings, situations, memory, availability to discuss, mental alertness.

• Lectures and lessons: The situation is not typical in the case of a lesson if we consider the relationship
between the protagonists of the argumentation. The teacher presents opinions supported by arguments. The
interlocutors (the students) find themselves, theoretically at least, in an inferior position; therefore, they find
it more difficult to hold a critical position.

Similarly, a lecture does not present a typical development of an argumentative discussion since the
public does not interrupt the lecturer to express their agreement or disagreement. A judgment can only be
offered at the end.

b) Written Argumentation

These are more formal, well-structured and length is not necessarily limited.
Written argumentation usually takes the form of an essay or a composition although we can also find descriptive or
narrative texts. Essays are defined as short literary compositions on a single subject, usually presenting the personal
view of the author.
3.2. Types according to the Content
We should distinguish between objective and subjective arguments:
Objective arguments are taken from reality and answer undeniable rules. Many of these objective
argumentations are found in the field of empirical and exact sciences such as mathematics, biology or
medicine.
1. Subjective arguments are used because the assertion is an opinion which reflects a disputable belief or
conviction. We then base our arguments on individual and personal values and tastes: judgements, opinions,
beliefs, which arise from personal preferences, orientations and tastes they cannot be empirically tested.
3.3. Types according to the conclusion reached
Schellens (1985) uses a typology which differentiates between restricted and unrestricted argumentation
schemes. Restricted schemes are limited to a certain conclusion. The group restricted argumentation schemes can
be divided into three different parts:

1. Regularity-based argumentation: used in support of a descriptive statement about the present, the past or
the future. Argumentation is given for a proposition of a factual or descriptive nature on the basis of a
regularly recurring empirical link.

2. Rule-based argumentation. Arguments are given for a statement of a normative nature.

3. Pragmatic argumentation: A position on the desirability of a given action, behavior or measure is

There are three unrestricted forms: argumentation from authority, argumentation from example and argumentation
from analogy. These schemes are not limited to a conclusion of one type, but have a wider application.

4. THEORIES OF ARGUMENTATION

Van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s version of the argumentation theory, the pragma-dialectical theory, is currently
most popular. Argumentation starts with four principles.

1. Externalisation: Argumentation needs a standpoint and an opposition to the standpoint. Therefore,

2. Socialisation: arguments are seen as an expression of people´s thought processes. Two people try to reach an
agreement via argumentation; therefore argumentation is part of a social context rather than an individual
context.

3. Functionalisation: Argumentation has the general function of managing the resolution of disagreement.

4. Dialectification: Argumentation is appropriate only when you are able to use arguments that are able to help
you argue against another person.

According to Toulmin, an argumentation can be made up of six categories: data (facts, proofs and arguments), claim
(thesis, opinion or hypothesis inferred from the data), warrant (guarantee or general rule to hold or justify an
opinion), backing (source of information), qualifier (elements that characterized the proposed arguments), and
rebuttal (doubts or reservations). The first three are always explicitly or implicitly present. The rest of the elements
are not always present.
Justification (in Toulmin´s terminology warrant) is the crucial element for the validity of an argument, and it is the
main feature we consider when we are going to value the argumentation. This warrant, of course, is linked to
ideology.

5. STRUCTURE

There are two inseparable components:

• Elements of situation: topic/ interlocutors / cultural + Sociolinguistic situation (time, place, precedents).

• Text: the it is organized (functional categories, thesis, arguments) + linguistic forms used, distribution of
argumentation

Logical Structure:
Following Toulmin, there are six categories which can be defined as follows:

1. Data: the facts, proofs, and arguments we have about something.

2. Claim: the thesis, opinion or hypothesis inferred from the data we have.

3. Warrant: this is a guarantee or general rule we can use to hold or justify an opinion, once we possess some
data or arguments. They may be shared by all human beings or just by the individuals of one society or a
group inside a society. A warrant (general rule) does not imply an objective rule, as it can also be subjective.

4. Backing: the source of the information. It is sometimes introduced in order to make others responsible for
the truth of the statements, or because their prestige may guarantee the truth, acceptability and validity of the
arguments or warrants. (as Chomsky said…, following Krashen…)

5. Qualifier: elements that characterize the proposed arguments or theses making them relative (this is the field
of modality: probably, maybe, perhaps, as it seems).

6. Rebuttal: doubs or reservations about the value or opportunity of the theses proposed (this was obvious in
the choice of qualifiers to introduce a thesis)

Example:

Claim Children should not use social media

Data 1. It encourages them to aspire to unreal expectations as to their life styles and looks
2. They can become addicted
 3. Social media are full of verbal aggressions

Warrant Children imitate what they see

Backing The study at the University of Oxford has shown that...

Qualifier Preferably, children should not use social media without adult supervision

Rebuttal There may be some social media which may be useful

6. CHARACTERISTICS

6.1. Stages of Argumentation

Van Eeemeren and Grootendorst identify the following stages of argumentative dialogue:

1. Confrontation: presentation of the problem.

2. Opening: agreement on rules

3. Argumentation: application of logical principles according to the agreed-upon rules.

4. Conclusion: when closing conditions are met.

6.2. Argumentation as a speech act

a) Has the purpose of defining the opinion of a speaker towards a possible problem or

b) Is used as a heuristic procedure in order to find out and state, through the analysis of some date, a personal
opinion which is thus made explicit, or

c) Tries to communicate to other speakers a personal opinion provided with arguments which may prove its
validity.

From a communicative point of view, a text which has an argumentative character is a macro-speech act which the
speaker produces to convince himself/herself or one or more interlocutors of the validity of his/her thesis or that
proposed by someone else.
Each communicative unit is marked by a linguistic form or linguistic exponent, which explicitly indicates the
communicative function of the statement. For example, some verbs (order, ask, state, deny) clearly have this
function and are called performatives.
Nevertheless there are other linguistic forms which help to indicate the type of speech act we want to perform.
Intonation, primary and secondary prosodic accents, interrogative tone, a modal verb, emphasis, etc. These are called
markers of the communicative act or of the illocutionary force, and thus, discourse markers.
4.3. Discourse markers
Discourse markers are linguistic exponents which are used to connect the statements and indicate their role in the
discourse. They function as textual connectives and may be classified by the function they have. Some are marking
the thesis, others the data or arguments, others the warrant, backing, rebuttal, or even the argumentation itself.
We can distinguish markers which:

1. Introduce the macro-argument: Now you will see why, In this way we demonstrate that…

2. Introduce a datum or argument: because, since, in fact, considering…

3. Introduce the thesis or conclusion: therefore, thus, then…

4. Introduce the warrant: since…, and that is so because…

5. Introduce a qualifier: maybe, perhaps, probably, can, may, should.

6. Introduce the authority: According to, As … says…

7. Introduce a rebuttal: except if…, although…, unless…

8. Introduce reinforcing of the justification presented: If we take into account the fact that…, we must point out
that, in spite of…, although.

9. Introduce a counter-opinion: nevertheless, in spite of, despite, although.

7. CONCLUSION

Many speakers find it very difficult to express their argumentation linguistically: the relationship between
cognitive development and general linguistic competence. It is true that this type of acquisition and knowledge takes
place at the same time that the speakers develop their cognitive development with age. In fact, not all the
argumentative categories and models are developed and acquired at the same time.
This problem is particularly clear when we consider Foreign Language Learning, even when it is carried out by
adults. We find some problems related to the particular characteristics of the language being learned, or cultural
problems due to the different codes used in the mother tongue and the foreign language to carry out a discussion.
That is why we should try to teach and practice (oral and written) argumentation in the FL class.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
DE BEAUGRANDE, R., DRESSLER, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London, UK, Longman.

DE BEAUGRANDE, 1980. Text, discourse, and process: toward a multidisciplinary science of texts.

London, ABLEX Pub. Corp.

LEECH, G. & SHORT, M. 1981 Style in Fiction. London: Longman.

MEYER, C. 2006. Introducing Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.

TRAUGOTT, E. & PRATT, M. L. 1980. Linguistics for Students of Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
INTERNET LINKS www.skillsworkshop.org
www.associatedcontent.com