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.
