A focus on the argumentative text

1. A focus on the argumentative text Lesson 11

2. The argumentative text type: the viewpoint of text-grammar (Werlich 1981) • Function : judging in answer to a problem • Starting from the implicit or explicit statement of a problem, the encoder puts forth a major thesis, often in opposition to another thesis.

3. The argumentative text type: the viewpoint of text-grammar (Werlich 1981) Thematic text base • The thematic text base can be reduced to a simple quality-attributing sentence (i.e. a statement asserting that something is the case): • Torture is not acceptable • His claims are true/false • or to a judgement on actions to be taken • X must be done (e.g. torture must be stopped) • Two assertions are related antithetically (thesis / antithesis) NB: the two propositions are not necessarily reported explicitly. It can be the case that the existence of an antithesis is only presupposed

4. Elizabeth, Shekhar Kapur 1998 The film is based on the early years of Elizabeth's reign. Blanchett and Rush reprised their roles in the sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007), covering the later part of her reign.

5. A viewpoint from Argumentation Theory • Pragma-dialectical model of a ‘critical discussion’. • “an argumentative exchange of speech acts which is fully aimed at resolving a difference of opinion in a reasonable manner” (van Eemeren 2011: 30). • ‘pragmatic’: the moves the critical discussion consists of have the form of speech acts (Searle, 1969; Grice, 1989) • assertive, commissive, directive and usage declarative speech acts theory of speech acts • ‘dialectical’: it provides the rules for systematically conducting such a critical discussion by means of moves and counter-moves. • Aims to bridge the gap betweenlogic (dialectic) and rhetoric cf. also van Eemeren/Grotendorst 1984, 1992, 2004

6. Aims to bridge the gap between logic (dialectic) and rhetoric • Dialectic: a method for dealing systematically with critical exchanges in verbal communication and interaction that amounts to […] putting logic into use (van Eemeren/Houtlosser 2006: 383) • Rhetoric: the theoretical study of the potential effectiveness of argumentative discourse in convincing or persuading an audience in actual argumenttaive practice • Logos, ethos, pathos,

7. A model of critical discussion Ideally, an argumentative discussion is a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. It proceeds through 4 stages: • confrontation stage: the difference of opinion emerges with one or two parties putting forth their diverging standpoint; • opening stage: The parties try to find out how much relevant common ground they share (as to the discussion format, background knowledge, values and so on), in order to determine whether their procedural and substantive ‘zone of agreement’ is sufficiently broad to conduct a fruitful discussion. • argumentation stage; the protagonist defends his standpoints by putting forward arguments to counter the antagonist’s objections • concluding stage: the parties assess to what extent the difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favour.

8. Confrontation stage • Identify the standpoint • When night is falling is not an adult movie for women, it is merely for young girls. It is full of soft-hearted romantic scenes, slow motion and soft styling. • In south America drugs will remain a more important export item than coffee and sugar. After all, the west is prepared to pay a resonable price for cocaine, unlike for coffee and sugar.

9. Confrontation stage Identify the standpoint • When night isfallingisnot an adult movie for women, itismerely for younggirls. Itis full of soft-heartedromanticscenes, slow motion and soft styling. • In south America drugswillremain a more important export item than coffee and sugar. Afterall, the west isprepared to pay a resonableprice for cocaine, unlike for coffee and sugar.

10. Opening stageParties establish their ‘zone of agreement’ from a procedural and substantive viewpoint. • In actual facts, the agreement is often taken for granted

11. . Procedural From a review of the book “The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God” I have read many books on both sides of theism debate in recent years and I can say that this is by far the best. […] This the well-known argument that since things in the material universe are designed then the universe itself has a designer. Mackie argues that the step from design to designer is a simple one, so, we must first establish design. The chapter recalls Hume’s objections to the design argument and touches on Kant’s analysis.

12. Substantial starting point Grieve said, “You accept, do you not, Mr. Carter, that the freedom of choice of medical treatment is a fundamental human right in adults?” “I do.” “And treatment without consent would constitute a trespass of the person, or indeed an assault of that person.” “I agree.” “And Adam is close to being an adult, as the law defines it in such instances.” Carter said, “If his eighteenth birthday was tomorrow morning, he would not yet have attained his majority today.” This was said with vehemence. Grieve was unruffled. “Adam is very nearly an adult. Is it not the case that he has expressed his view to treatment intelligently and articulately?” At this point, the consultant’s stoop vanished and he grew another inch. “His views are those of his parents. They’re not his own. His objection to being transfused is based on the doctrines of a religious cult for which he may well become a pointless martyr.” “Cult is a strong word, Mr. Carter,” Grieve said quietly. “Do you yourself have any religious belief?” “I’m an Anglican.” “Is the Church of England a cult?” (McEwan, The Children Act, 2014)

13. Argumentation stage • Argumentation structure • (simple) • multiple • coordinative • subordinative • Argument schemes • symptomatic • based on analogy • causal (pragmatic)

14. Argumentation structure Multiple argumentation Alternative defences of the same standpoint, presented one after the other. Each of them could theoretically stand alone

15. Argumentation structureCoordinative argumentation It is one single attempt at defending the standpoint that consists of a combination of arguments that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defence.

16. Argumentation structureSubordinative argumentation The supporting argument for the initial standpoint, which cannot stand on its own, is supported by another argument, and if that argument needs support, then a further argument is added, and so on.

18. The argumentation stage Three ‘generic argument schemes’ (van Eemeren 2010: 94) based respectively on causal, symptomatic or analogy relations, from which all other subtypes of arguments descend.

19. Argumentation based on a symptomatic relation • A standpointisdefended by citing in the argument a certainsign, symptom or distinguishingmark of whatisclaimed in the standpoint • A trait presentedastypical of a certain group, ascharacteristic of a certain situation, as an inherent trait of a certainpersonality (van Eemeren et al 2002) • Jack is an experienced teacher because he spends little time on lesson preparation (spending little time on lessonpreparationistypical/symptomatic of beingexperiencedteachers)

20. Argumentation based on a relation of analogy • A standpointisdefended by showingthatsomethingreferred o in the standpointissimilar to somethingthatiscited in the argumentation • The case mentioned in the argument can be a model to be imitated or an exmaple to be avoided. The defense arguesthatwhatistruefro one case istrue for the other case. It’s not necessary to give 10$ allowance to Jimmy, because his brother always got just 5$ a week. (and the one childshould be treated just as the brother)

21. Argumentation based on a causal relation • A standpointisdefended by making a causal connection between the argument and the standpoint • The argumentpresentssomethingas a a cause of the effectmentioned in the standpoint, or as a meams to an end Lydia must have weak eyes because she is always working at the computer (working at the computer leads to weak eyes)

22. A subtype of the causal argumentation is pragmatic argumentation, in which a standpoint recommends a certain course of action on the ground that its consequences would be favourable.

23. How to read a scheme: e.g. causal standpoint argument Reasoning that warrants passage from the argument to the standpoint

24. Schemes and topoi (loci) • No unanimous definition of topoi • A possible definition: • warrants providing backing to a logical inference that leads from premises to conclusions (Walton et al 2008: 275). • In this latter sense, topoi are often implicit, and roughly correspond to the if-then proposition in modern treatments of argument schemes (see van Eemeren 2010: 102 and ff.) • If Lucy spends many hours working on the computer, then she must have poor eyes

25. In the debate that preceded the Brexit referendum in the UK, a dominant topic in the Guardian has been a call to reject populist rhetoric, as it relies on unfair practices for the construction of consensus, such as manipulation, scapegoating, and fear-mongering • (i.e. if populist rhetoric rests on unfair practices, then sensible people must reject it).

26. A real-life example of topos Four weeks to go, can it get any worse? Yes, it really can, as there seems no depth to which the out campaign will not sink. Who would predict that urbane "modern" Conservatives would plunge so fast into a Powellite gutter of racism that has not been seen in Westminster for decades? Frantic, reckless, ruthless, the leavers have nowhere to turn but xenophobia, trounced by the tsunami of warnings of a Brexit economic shock. But Gove and Johnson treat facts with Trump-scale disdain. Instead, reaching into dark-hearted fear, they claim Turks, Albanians, Macedonians, Serbs and Montenegrins are poised to invade. It really doesn't matter that it isn't true. For their campaign, facts get in the way - they are contemptuously judging that their supporters won't know the difference. […] (Guardian, May 23)

27. Representation of schemes

28. Y is true of X Because Z true of X And Z leads to Y How to read a scheme Standpoint Sensible people should reject leavers’ rhetoric Argument Leavers’ rhetoric is manipulative (based on lies) Reasoning that warrants passage from arg. to standpoint If someone lies, then voters should reject their proposals

29. Other labels for the same concepts: conclusion Minor premise Major premise

30. Reconstruction of a critical discussion Reconstructive analysis of all and only those argumentative moves that are analytically relevant because they play a potential part in resolving a difference of opinion on the merits With a view to highlighting the real contribution of all the relevant moves to the solution of the difference of opinion, an analytic overview of the argumentative discourse is to be outlined, through a series of transformative operations

31. Variations in model application In real life, there are divergences from this model: Sometimes the different stages overlap Sometimes the order of the stages is different (e.g. when in the middle of a discussion, the parties go back to the confrontation stage, because they are no longer aware of what exactly the disagreement is about), or one or more of the stages is missing (often, the opening stage). argumentative discussion also contains some informative elements in monologic and in written texts there is no interaction; the divergence of opinion is only virtual and the author organizes his/her discussion in opposition to a virtual antagonist on the basis of his/her anticipation of possible objections.

32. Reconstruction of a critical discussion transformative operations Deletion of ‘irrelevant digressions’ Permutation, i.e. rearranging speech acts whose order does not reflect their function in the resolution process (transformation of separated parts which belong together….) Addition, i.e. making explicit such speech acts as remain implicit in the actual discourse Substitution, i.e. reformulating those speech acts that in their original wording result ambiguous, making their function opaque

33. Reconstruction • Do you love your old man? Well, then… • Addition Protagonist’s standpoint: you must stop crying • Substitution Do you love your old man? > Because you love your old man Well, then… > if you love your old man, then you do what he asks you to do

34. Reconstruct the critical discussion in the following excerpts • His devotion to child care shows that he cannot be guilty (Jane Jackson, Parool) • Telephone companies are seriously considering letting people pay for unanswered phone calls. This is beyond my understanding. I don’t pay for a hotel room whene there appearsto be no vacancies, do I? And the man in the bookshop does not charge me for a book I ordered when it turns out to be out of stock, does he? (letter to the editor)