Thursday, August 11, 2016

Types of discourse: Argumentation



Argumentation is a type of discourse whose goal is to defend an opinion and persuade a listener about it through proofs and arguments linked with: logic (the law of human thought), dialectics (procedures that are tried in order to prove or refute something) and rhetoric (the use of language tools to persuade through non-rational motivators such as affection, emotion, insinuation…).
Pragmatic aspects
    Being an act of communication an argumentative text in its most basic form is nothing but a sentence in which a transmitter sends a receiver an argument or reason in order to make him agree on a conclusion.
    The transmitter is the builder of the discourse through which the receiver is expected to be persuaded and influenced to change his way of thinking or to act in a certain way. His attitude is subjective but he tries to make it appear to be objective. On the other hand, if argumentation is expected to be effective, the receiver towards it is directed must be taken into consideration.

Structural aspects
    There are two essential elements in an argumentative text: the thesis and the body of argumentation.
·         Thesis: the main idea being argued and reflected upon.
·         Body of argumentation: providing all kinds of «reasons» that allow the author to convince the receiver. They are called arguments.
Basic structures
    The two basic ways in which these elements are structured are aligned with the exposition:
·         Inductive structure. Based on hard facts a general idea that ratifies them is established. The thesis usually appears at the end and is used as a conclusion for the whole argumentative process.
·         Deductive structure: Starting from a general idea (initial thesis) a concrete conclusion is reached.
    These can be introduced in a different way
·         Framed structure: It starts with a general idea with arguments that generate a different final thesis as a conclusion.
·         Repetitive structure: The same thesis is repeated along the text.
·         Parallel structure: Different theses are introduced and argued at the same time.   

Type of arguments
According to their persuasive power.
·         Relevance: Relevant arguments are related to or strengthen the thesis.
·         Validity: They lead to the expected conclusion. Otherwise they become fallacious arguments.
·         Argumentative power: It depends on how easy they are to refute. Weak and solid argument types are distinguished. If it cannot be refuted, then it is an indisputable argument.
According to their function
·         Arguments supportive to the thesis itself.
·         Concessions or ideas from the opposing thesis that are temporarily accepted.
·         Rebuttals or arguments used to totally or partially refute the opposing thesis.
·         Counterarguments that invalidate the arguments opposing the thesis or the concessions that the author himself has previously accepted.
According to its contents: The contents of an argument are based on subjects: the different values on which an argument is based in order to establish its argumentative power. There are many kinds
·         What exists is preferable to what does not exist
·         What is useful and beneficial is preferable to the useless: what is non-harmful is preferable to what is harmful.
·         What is moral and ethical is preferable to what is immoral.
·         Quantity is preferable to quality.
·         Quality is preferable to quantity.
·         What is beautiful is preferable to what is ugly.
·         What is traditional is preferable to what is new.
·         What is new is preferable to what is old.
·         What is nice is preferable to what is unpleasant.
According to its objectives: The basic objectives of argumentation are demonstration and persuasion. Rational arguments, based on facts, are used for the former. Affective arguments are used for the latter.
Rational arguments:
·         Logic argumentation is based on cause-effect, concrete-abstract, condition-result, and individual-general relationships.
·         Syllogism: it is an argument made of two premises and a conclusion necessarily driven from them.
·         The example
·         Use of common sense and use of sayings and adages
·         The argument of authority
·         Analogic argumentation is based on relationships of likeness
·         Comparison
·         Metaphor

Affective arguments
    The difference with the former lies in the use of language: expressive values are sought through the use of stylistic resources. Connotative values prevail, the same as in literary texts. The use of affective argumentation is conditioned by the type of text. It is unsuitable for scientific texts but it can be found frequently in humanistic texts.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

What are the requirements we need in order to write an essay?



First of all, dare to think. When we write an essay, we need to get rid of the mental laziness that prevents us from reaching our own conclusions. In contrast to the comfortable attitude of those who just repeat what it has been written before, in a true essay we take the risk of exposing our own opinion with out own words.

A thorough revision of the bibliographical sources, a good amount of imagination when creating the hypothesis and discursive rigor when developing the argumentation are the basic conditions to bring an essay to a good end.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Example of an essay



In order to illustrate our proposal we include the following example:

1-Plan of the essay:

1.      Short enunciation of the problem: Is it valid to simplify the orthography of the Spanish language?
2.      Short enunciation of the hypothesis: the distinctive features of the Spanish language should be maintained.
3.      Short enunciation of the arguments:
3.1.  The supporters of simplifying the language ignore the historical character of it.
3.2.  The orthographical features are an element of identification of the Spanish language.
3.3.  Neither the evolution nor the conservation of orthography can be decided by a decree.

Friday, July 31, 2015

The opportunity of the beginning of a text

There are many first words that work as beginnings of text: the name of a work, the title of a section, the first paragraph, the first page, the first phrase of a paragraph... These are usually the places where a reader begins his journey through the text, and if – and only if – they’re attractive enough, will he give the following section or the following work a chance.

This is textual area of opportunity – maybe the last chance we have – to capture the reader’s interest so he’ll be compelled to keep reading, to not let go of the text, and to force himself to make time to read us.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

How to correct your text



In order to make the decision on whether to keep or to take out some content, both the author and the text should be kept in mind. The text should be kept in mind to see if it can be supported by itself. We ask the question, “What’s the text mentioned above?” If we can find an answer (in other words, if we don’t get lost when we’re trying to find the answer, and the answer is there, clear and obvious), then we only need to see that it’s not discordant, and that it’s in the right place, with proper spelling and syntax. 

But, if we can’t answer the question based on the text, we need to ask the author. Look the author in the eye and ask him or her to answer, with a sentence or a word, what the above text actually is. If he can’t answer, or if he does with something similar to “What was just said, can’t you see it?” then we’ll both (author and corrector) have strong evidence that the problem is not the redaction, but rather a blurred construction, without clarity, that can’t be communicated because the reasoning that should be supporting it needs to be refined. This is equivalent to the test of knowledge: if I can explain something, it’s because I know it; if I get lost in the explanation, I don’t know it yet. So, before rewriting, we have to send the author back home with the homework of redesigning with more precision, not just his words, but rather his whole work.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Avoid a vague start

Starting a paragraph by repeating what was previously said is one of redaction’s capital sins. It should be instantly condemned, with no right to appeal. It’s a vague, ambiguous idea with no support, especially when we take pleasure in the false certainty that the reader agrees with the interpretation of an object, conclusion or reasoning that, in the peak of our inspiration, we’ve given to the previous text.

And what’s the previous text? What’s that everything? You ask yourself these questions when you read the text... You have to go back, reread (sometimes rereading several paragraphs of pages), only to discover that we can’t really find that powerful, clear and wonderfully evident part, and I, as the reader, shouldn’t have overlooked it if I was actually paying attention (according to the author, of course).

Why do we do it? When we use the “From the above”, we’re also creating a logical relationship between two components: an event happens and has consequences, they’re intimately linked by a cause and effect relationship, or rather, an antecedent relationship. It’s vital for this relationship to exist before inserting a “from the above”, that in another way, wouldn’t be more than just an unfortunate filler.

Without a doubt, where we find this expression the most is in technical writing, essays, narratives... It’s rare to find it in literature, fiction and poetry, and if it is used, then it had better be used with such mastery that it brings out something unexpected.

In academic-didactic works, this is a really common bad habit, because of the nature of the texts: they’re expository works, many of them self-explanatory, whose main purpose is to teach whoever is there to learn. This is why redaction should be really important. The student needs clear, well-constructed texts, where there’s no place for ambiguity or doubt as a result of bad redaction. Expressions like “from the above” only contribute to create vague ideas, without the necessary definition that helps the reader recreate a clear, vivid and precise image of what he’s trying to learn.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Can we have too many references?

Excessive references can also become a strategy to hide a lack of the author’s own arguments and the lack of a real connective thread in his own proposal.

This can all be read between the lines when a paragraph starts by using another person’s name, with a foreign voice, a voice that belongs to someone who has nothing to do with who we are, or with what our writing can be like.

From a reading point of view, a reference placed in the most prominent part of the paragraph is a constant nuisance when it’s reiterated, paragraph after paragraph, through the pages and full works. Our mind, instead of reconstructing special content that require conscious attention, gets distracted with an onomastic geography that assumes more importance than ideas or crucial images.

When we make a correction, we need to ask ourselves: Is this what I was looking for? Is this the most appropriate style to help the public benefit from the text? Do we really want to value more what someone else says, instead of valuing our own ideas more? Does using too many references make it seem like the text is empty, disordered and without an original idea? The answers to these questions determine the way in which the text has to be rewritten, corrected, edited and published. If ethics ruled the selection of work published in college, not a single sheet of paper would be miserably wasted in texts written just to earn points towards an academic grade, getting job positions and enlarging pseudo-academic egos.