Article published In: Argumentative Style
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1] 2021
► pp. 46–72
Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis
Text types as presentational choices
Published online: 4 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20023.gat
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20023.gat
Abstract
This study is a contribution to the recently introduced notion of argumentative style (. 2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 331: 153–171. ) in the framework of the pragma-dialectical approach. It aims at characterizing a detached argumentative style,
by focusing on a speech event pertaining to the communicative activity type organizational discourse, a report on EU environment and climate
change policies. The analysis concerns the executive summary and the key findings of the report, reconstructed in the analysis as the
concluding stage of the critical discussion corresponding to the pragma-dialectical model. The notion of text type (Adam, Jean-Michel. 1992. Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan Université.) used in the analysis has allowed a more fine-grained characterization of the detached argumentative style,
especially since the communicative practice under analysis displays a specific discourse format and structure for reasons of
conventionalization and institutionalization. In such circumstances, determined by the type of conventionalization imposed by the context,
the adoption of a detached argumentative style appears to be a pre-requisite. In the concluding stage of a critical discussion the
difference of opinion is not restated, while the most significant standpoints are synthetically (re)presented by an adequate balance of
narrative, descriptive and metadiscursive text strategies meant to support the objectivity, the conciseness of the presentation and also
ensuring the necessary density of information required in a report summary or the presentation of key findings, respectively. While explicit
negative evaluations or formulations of standpoints are avoided, the recommendations are presented as open to adoption or reconsideration by
policymakers.
Article outline
- 1.Arguing as a function of documents supporting public policies
- 2.The notion of argumentative style in pragma-dialectics
- 3.The notion of text type / text sequence in the analysis of argumentative style
- 3.1The narrative text sequence
- 3.2The descriptive text sequence
- 3.3The explanatory text sequence
- 3.4Reported discourse and metadiscourse sequences
- 4.The sample under analysis as a heterogeneous communicative practice
- 5.A simplified analytic overview
- 6.Aspects of concluding maneuvering characterizing a detached argumentative style by means of text type / sequences choice
- 6.1Place and role of the Executive summary and the Key findings
- 6.2Narrative text sequences
- 6.3Descriptive text sequences
- 6.4Explanatory, metadiscursive and reported discourse text sequences
- 6.5Directiveness through narration and description
- 7.Audience expectations with respect to a scientific / technical study / report
- 8.Text types as features of a detached argumentative style in concluding maneuvering
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (24)
Adam, Jean-Michel. 1992. Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan Université.
Atayan, Vahram. 2004. Structures macroscopiques de l’argumentation dans l’analyse du discours – dialogicité, polyphonie et modificateurs réalisants. In Javier Suso López, Rodrigo López Carillo (éds.), Le français face aux défis actuels. Histoire, langue et culture, vol. I1: 531–543. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
. 2006. Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
. 2009. Fonctions argumentatives secondaires dans l’argumentation textuelle, ou pourquoi une ‘équipe surprise’ gagne (presque) toujours. Quelques considérations sur le renforcement et l’atténuation de l’argumentation en allemand, espagnol, français et italien. In Vahram Atayan, Daniela Pirazzini (éds.), Argumentation: théorie – langue – discours: 93–111. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (Rhethos).
Bal, Mieke. (1985) 1997. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of the Narrative, second edition. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
. 2020. Characterizing argumentative style: The case of KLM and the destructed squirrels. In R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), @Title. Argumentation Library.
. 2021. Examining Argumentative Style. Present volume.
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gâță, Anca. 2020a. Argumentative Style in a Study on Climate Change Policies. Oral communication, International Conference on Argumentation and Public Policy „Reasons, Citizens and Institutions”, COST CA 17132, European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy analysis (APPLY), University of Wrocław, March 4–6.
. 2020b. Le « triangle » acte de langage – (proto)type textuel – (proto)type d’activité communicative dans l’analyse du discours argumentatif. Oral communication, 8th Scientific Conference of Doctoral Schools “Perspectives and challenges in doctoral research”, “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galați, June 18–19.
Hyland, Ken. 2017. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 1131: 16–29.
Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed. 2019. The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 65–90.
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2019. Environmental Argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 1–11.
Miller, Ryan T. & Silvia Pessoa. 2018. Corpus-driven study of information systems project reports, in Vaclav Brezina, Lynne Flowerdew (eds.), Learner Corpus Research: New Perspectives and Applications: 112–133. London / New York: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, Jérôme Jacquin. 2018. Introduction. In S. Oswald, T. Herman & J. Jacquin (eds.), Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations: 1–21. Amsterdam: Springer.
Richards, I. A. 1936 [1965]. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewinski & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün. 2019. Environmental manifestoes. Argumentative strategies in the ‘Ecomodernist Manifesto’. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 12–39.
Sales, Hazel E. 2006. Executive Summaries, in Professional Communication in Engineering: 214–240. Hampshire / New York: Mac Millan Palgrave.
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–159.
Source document for the analysis
Herold et al. 2019. EU Environment and Climate Change Policies – State of play, current and future challenges, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg. [Requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Co-authored by specialists of the (research and consultancy body) Öko Institute for Applied Ecology, Germany, [URL]] [URL]
