In an argument, is your first reaction to point fingers and list reasons why the other person is wrong? Does this sound like you? If so, your argument style is to attack. During an argument, your sentences probably start with ‘you always’ and ‘you never’. Those phrases are followed by the fault you’re placing on the other blogger.comted Reading Time: 6 mins According to van Eemeren, argumentative styles always have three dimensions: the selection of standpoints, starting-points, arguments or other argumentative moves, the adjustment of argumentative moves to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers, and the choice of verbal or non-verbal means for advancing argumentative blogger.com by: 5 Answer: The proper style for an argumentative essay is academic. Explanation: The proper style for an argumentative essay is academic because it must be clear and formal. Furthermore, all the ideas provided in an argumentative essay must be written using academic language and backed up by evidence
How to Write an Argumentative Essay: Outline and Examples | EssayPro
This theoretical expose explores the complex notion of argumentative style, which has so far been largely neglected in argumentation theory, argumentative style. After an introduction argumentative style the problems involved, argumentative style theoretical tools for identifying the properties of the discourse in which an argumentative style manifests itself are explained from a pragma-dialectical perspective and a theoretical definition of argumentative style is provided that does full justice to its role in argumentative discourse.
The article concludes with a short reflection upon the next steps that need to argumentative style taken in argumentation theory in further substantiating the notion of argumentative style.
Although the concept of style also applies to visual and other non-verbal modes of communication, the remarks argumentative style argumentative style tend to concentrate on spoken and written discourse, argumentative style.
Argumentative style the characterisations and other verdicts in the literature are given from a linguistic background. Footnote 2. Claes and Hulsens : observe in their dictionary of rhetoric that style was in the past seen as literary adornment ornatuslater as a deviation of ordinary language use and nowadays as a choice between language variants. Sometimes the discussion of style concentrates on the style that is used in a particular speech event e.
Kennedy or Nabokovand sometimes on the general characteristics of the style used in a certain type of communicative activity e, argumentative style. love letters or period e. editorials in the 19th century —usually viewed in comparison with other communicative activity types or periods, argumentative style.
Although, of course, the presentational aspect of argumentative discourse is to be given its due, argumentative style should in my view be analysed for its instrumentality in trying to resolve a difference of opinion by convincing the intended audience or readership by means of argumentative discourse of the acceptability of the standpoint at issue, argumentative style. This means that in my approach the treatment of style will concentrate primarily on its argumentative function.
In line with the gist of my general approach to argumentation, my treatment will be at the same time pragmatic in the linguistic sense argumentative style dialectical in the philosophical sense, argumentative style. In dealing with argumentative style I will make use of the theoretical insights provided by the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation van Eemerenargumentative style, in particular those concerning the determining aspects of strategic manoeuvring, the use of argumentative moves, argumentative style, the choice of dialectical routes and the implementation of strategic considerations.
Starting from the view that argumentative style is a complex notion that is instrumental in the pursuit of effectiveness in convincing the addressee of a certain standpoint, argumentative style, this article is aimed at capturing the notion of argumentative style in a working definition that relates argumentative argumentative style to the properties of argumentative discourse in which it manifests itself in the discourse.
In order to get to this definition, argumentative style, I shall in Sect. Against this background, I shall in Sect. In Sect. The first property of argumentative discourse relevant to determining its argumentative style consists of the argumentative moves that are made in the discourse.
In pragma-dialectics the various kinds of argumentative moves that can be instrumental in resolving a difference of opinion on the merits are represented in a model of a critical discussion van Eemeren and Grootendorst argumentative style 42— In this theoretical model it is for each stage of the critical discussion indicated in terms of speech acts which types of argumentative moves can be contributions to the resolution process van Eemeren : 33— In argumentative discourse particular argumentative moves are made at every point in the discourse.
In all these cases the argumentative moves concerned involve certain choices regarding the way in which the argumentative discourse is conducted on the part of the arguer, argumentative style. This goes in principle for every argumentative move that is made in the discourse in any of the real-life counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion: the confrontation stage, argumentative style, the opening stage, the argumentation stage, and the concluding stage.
The analytic overview gives a description of all argumentative moves in the discourse that are pertinent to an adequate evaluation van Eemeren : 96— A complex argumentative style move in the conduct of argumentative discourse that is crucial to the resolution of the difference of opinion is the use of argumentation in support of the standpoint at issue.
Various types of argumentation can be advanced to enhance the argumentative style of a standpoint, each of them characterized by the employment of a specific argument scheme. In symptomatic argumentation the argument scheme is used to establish a relation of concomitance between the argument concerned and the standpoint that is supported, in comparison argumentation to establish a relation of comparability, and in causal argumentation to establish a relation of causality van Eemeren and Grootendorst : 94— The dialectical rationale of the distinction lies in the different kinds of interactional follow-up instigated by the critical questions that are to be dealt with when the various argument schemes are employed.
The rationale for distinguishing between subtypes of the three main types of argumentation is in pragma-dialectics also both pragmatic and dialectical. Because the justificatory principle appealed to varies according to the argument scheme that is employed, the basic critical question will be different for each type of argumentation, argumentative style.
The basic critical argumentative style associated with the use of symptomatic argumentation is whether what is stated in the standpoint is indeed a sign or token of what is mentioned in the argumentation; the basic critical question associated with the use of comparison argumentation is whether what is stated in the standpoint is indeed comparable to what is mentioned in the argumentation; and the basic critical question associated with the use of causal argumentation is whether what is mentioned in the argumentation does indeed lead to what is stated in the standpoint, argumentative style.
Other relevant critical questions may relate specifically to the justificatory point of the particular subtype of argumentation that is used, to certain qualities of the premises or to vital presuppositions, argumentative style. Footnote 3. Footnote 4 Argumentative style pragma-dialectics analytically relevant argumentative moves involving the use of dissociation are realized by means of language usage declaratives aimed at clarifying the meaning of vital terms by providing a definition, a precization, etc, argumentative style.
van Eemeren : As van Rees emphasizes, dissociations are generally brought to bear in order to resolve a contradiction or an incompatibility. In making a dissociation the existing problem of usage is solved by splitting up the problematic concept conveyed by the use of a certain word or expression and introducing next to the original concept a new concept.
Such a dissociation may lead to giving a new name to the new concept, argumentative style, to the old concept or even to both, but this is neither necessary nor typical.
Footnote 5 Dissociation may mean that, compared with its original meaning, the meaning of a term is reduced, argumentative style, because a specification or precization is given argumentative style that in the new use of the term only part of the original meaning is maintained, Argumentative style 6 but the new meaning given to a term can also be broader, more extensive or otherwise richer than the one that is criticized, so that in its new use the term refers to a more elaborate or otherwise different concept.
Argumentative styles manifest themselves in the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion in argumentative discourse first of all in the argumentative moves made in introducing the standpoints at issue and defining the difference of opinion, in establishing the material and procedural starting points of the discourse, in advancing the arguments constituting the argumentation in support of the standpoints at issue, and in presenting the outcome of the argumentative process, argumentative style.
In determining the argumentative style of the discourse, when considering the manifestation of analytically relevant argumentative moves in the discourse both the associative and the dissociative uses of argumentative moves must be taken into account, argumentative style. The analytic overview of the argumentative discourse concerned is the most appropriate point of departure in this endeavour, because it provides a survey of the implementation of the various types of argumentative moves that have been put to good use in the discourse, argumentative style.
By specifying the critical questions associated with the argument scheme that has been activated, the dialectical routes instigated by the use of a particular sub type of argumentation can argumentative style portrayed in a dialectical profile.
Such a dialectical profile describes the potential ways of going through the process of resolving a difference of opinion that are initiated by the choice of a particular sub type of argumentation in defending the standpoint at issue, argumentative style. Argumentative style dialectical route that is chosen in the discourse is the second property of argumentative discourse, next to the argumentative moves that are made, that is relevant to determining the argumentative style that is used in the discourse.
When in argumentative discourse the one sub type of argumentation is chosen instead of the other the dialectical routes that are available will be different from the dialectical routes that may become the options in the other case, argumentative style. The choice of argument schemes in the main argumentation, advanced at the first level of the defence of a standpoint, will depend primarily on the type of standpoint that is at issue, argumentative style, while the continuation of the dialectical route that is chosen at the next levels of the defence is in the first place dependent on the critical questions associated with the argument scheme employed in the main argumentation to defend the standpoint.
The different sets of critical questions going with the various types of argumentation that can be chosen will induce the arguer to make different kinds of argumentative moves to anticipate or respond argumentative style the different kinds of critical reactions, argumentative style. Thus the argumentative pattern characterizing the discourse provides a description of the dialectical route that is chosen in an argumentative discourse, argumentative style.
An argumentative pattern consists of a particular constellation of argumentative moves in which in dealing with a particular kind of difference of opinion in defence of a particular type of standpoint a particular argument scheme or combination of argument schemes is used in a particular kind of argumentation structure van Eemeren : The categories and subcategories distinguished in these typologies can be put to good use in describing the way in which argumentative patterns manifest themselves in particular speech events in specific constellations of argumentative moves van Eemeren : — Because each of the three argument schemes calls out its own set of critical questions, the uses of symptomatic argumentation, argumentative style, comparison argumentation and causal argumentation are associated with different dialectical routes that can be taken in resolving a difference of opinion.
The differences between the dialectical routes instigated by the use of argumentation in which one of these argument schemes is employed are in the first place determined by the basic critical question connected with the type of argumentation concerned. In case specific subtypes of the various types of argumentation are used, other differences result from the need to respond to the additional question pertaining to the subtype concerned that complements the basic question.
Still further differences ensue in the various cases from the critical questions relating to the premises or to vital presuppositions.
The responses given to all these critical questions manifest themselves systematically in the discourse in particular kinds of argumentative patterns, argumentative style.
Because it depends partly on the macro-context in which the argumentation takes place exactly which critical questions are pertinent and need to be responded to, the specific conventions of the various communicative activity types established in a certain domain determine to argumentative style extent which critical questions will be dealt with in the discourse, argumentative style. Since in a communicative activity type the answers to certain critical questions have in some cases already been agreed upon from the start, argumentative style, dealing with these questions is then superfluous.
Footnote 8 This applies, for instance, to a political debate in which pragmatic argumentation is advanced to put an end to the problem of unemployment. The positive answer to the critical question whether solving the problem of unemployment is indeed desirable is then already presupposed argumentative style a point of departure of the exchange.
In other words, the critical questions that need to be dealt with in checking the acceptability of the use of a certain sub type of argumentation not only need to be specified, supplemented or otherwise amended to make them applicable to a specific cluster of communicative activity type s van Eemeren : —but they also need to be implemented in accordance with the specific institutional preconditions of that cluster of communicative activity type s van Eemeren : — The fact that they are prototypical means that these argumentative patterns are characteristic of the argumentative discourse that is carried out in that particular communicative activity type or cluster of communicative activity types van Eemeren : 20— Footnote 9 Since the institutional point to be realized in the strategic manoeuvring and the institutional conventions and preconditions that are to be taken into account are related to the various kinds of institutionalized macro-contexts, the prototypical argumentative patterns that come into being in the various communicative activity types will vary to a greater or lesser extent.
Although it may be expected that argumentative patterns that are prototypical of a communicative activity type will be found regularly in speech events that are specimens of the kind of argumentative practice concerned, argumentative style, they need not occur frequently, let alone always be present van Eemeren : Certain prototypical argumentative patterns may in certain argumentative practices occur frequently while other prototypical argumentative patterns may not, argumentative style.
The fact that it is stereotypical means that it is a argumentative style argumentative pattern that occurs more frequently in the same cluster of communicative activity type s than some other argumentative patterns or that its frequency of occurrence in this cluster of communicative activity type argumentative style is higher argumentative style in other clusters of communicative activity types—or both.
Footnote Next to the basic argumentative patterns developed in argumentative discourse at the first level of the defence of the standpoints at issue, extended argumentative patterns will argumentative style at the next level s of the defence when the critical questions that are anticipated or responded to give occasion to lend support to the main argumentation.
In principle the basic argumentative pattern of the discourse represents the main line of defence, argumentative style, but this main line can sometimes be reinforced by subordinative argumentation included in the extended argumentative pattern. In such cases the argumentative style of the discourse may manifest itself both in the basic argumentative pattern of the discourse and in certain parts of the extended argumentative pattern, argumentative style.
In examining the way in which the argumentative style that is used in the discourse manifests itself in the discourse not only the basic argumentative pattern indicating the main line of defence must therefore be taken into account but sometimes also the extended argumentative pattern, argumentative style.
Starting from the assumption that, in principle, protagonists may be expected to be out to make the strongest possible case for their standpoints in the macro-context in which the argumentative discourse takes place, argumentative style, I will now pay attention to the strategic rationale of the conduct of argumentative argumentative style. Making the best of argumentative discourse means that in every argumentative move they make arguers may be assumed to be out to ensure that this move is not only considered reasonable but also effective in gaining acceptance from the audience they want to reach, argumentative style.
Because of the tension inevitably involved in the simultaneous pursuit of these two aims, in making argumentative moves the arguers always have to manoeuvre strategically to keep the balance.
The selection from the topical potential may result, for instance, in the choice of a particular starting point or a particular sub type of argumentation, argumentative style. to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers the arguer intends to reach.
Adaptation to audience demand boils down, for example, to the use of a particular starting point or sub type of argumentation that the intended audience is likely to accept, argumentative style. choosing a particular way of expressing oneself in carrying out the argumentative move concerned. The exploitation of presentational devices can, argumentative style instance, argumentative style, amount to formulating a crucial starting point explicitly in a formal way or—just the opposite—leaving the conclusion of the argumentation implicit.
In argumentative reality the three analytically distinguished aspects of strategic manoeuvring are interdependent and come simultaneously to the fore in every argumentative move.
The argumentative moves made by the arguers in argumentative discourse may all be supposed to have been aimed at realizing their dialectical and rhetorical aims of resolving the difference of opinion in their own favour.
The various strategic manoeuvres the arguers carry out in the discourse may therefore be expected to be as much as possible coordinated in a way that is optimally helpful to achieving this aim, argumentative style. This coordination of strategic manoeuvres is to take place both at the level of the three aspects of the individual manoeuvres and at the level of the succession of the various manoeuvres in the discourse, argumentative style.
Footnote 12 The implementation of strategic considerations is the third property of argumentative discourse that is relevant to determining the argumentative style that is used in the discourse. Some argumentative strategies that are used pertain exclusively to a particular stage of the process of resolving a difference of opinion and are only carried out in that stage van Eemeren : 46— A well-recognized confrontational strategy provisionally named humpty - dumptying consists, for example, of choosing standpoints by making self-serving arbitrary choices from the available disagreement space and treating them as the standpoints that are to be dealt with in the discourse van Eemeren : A so-called problem - solving argumentational strategy used in defending a argumentative style standpoint concerning a recommended action consists, for example, of relying on causal argumentation of a pragmatic or a more complex type to suggest that carrying out this action will eventually solve the troublesome problem at issue automatically Garssen An example designated as making them bite the bullet consists of getting it through to the other party that a certain outcome needs to be accepted as unavoidable, however undesirable that may be van Eemeren : A familiar argumentative style of argumentative style a general argumentative strategy used in all discussion stages is playing down the opponent van Eemeren : The strategic design explains how in the discourse concerned an effort is made to deal with the argumentative predicament of real-life argumentative discourse of having to combine aiming for effectiveness with maintaining reasonableness, argumentative style.
The constitutive components of the strategic design of an argumentative discourse are the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are implemented. The strategic design explains how certain strategic considerations are brought to bear in choosing a certain dialectical route in making certain argumentative moves in the discourse, argumentative style. It can therefore be regarded to constitute the strategic scenario Footnote 14 underlying the conduct of the argumentative discourse that may be ascribed to the arguer van Eemeren : — Style is a notion that denotes a particular argumentative style of doing something or dealing with something.
In linguistics, where the notion is discussed most intensively, the term style has, argumentative style, due to the nature of the discipline, acquired the limited meaning of a particular way of using language.
This meaning has also been adopted when style is put in a rhetorical perspective, argumentative style. Argumentative style is in that case more productive to define the concept of style in a more encompassing way.
How to Write a Good Argumentative Essay: Logical Structure
, time: 9:514 Different Types of Argument Styles - FamilyToday
According to van Eemeren, argumentative styles always have three dimensions: the selection of standpoints, starting-points, arguments or other argumentative moves, the adjustment of argumentative moves to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers, and the choice of verbal or non-verbal means for advancing argumentative blogger.com by: 5 Answer: The proper style for an argumentative essay is academic. Explanation: The proper style for an argumentative essay is academic because it must be clear and formal. Furthermore, all the ideas provided in an argumentative essay must be written using academic language and backed up by evidence In an argument, is your first reaction to point fingers and list reasons why the other person is wrong? Does this sound like you? If so, your argument style is to attack. During an argument, your sentences probably start with ‘you always’ and ‘you never’. Those phrases are followed by the fault you’re placing on the other blogger.comted Reading Time: 6 mins
No comments:
Post a Comment