Topic 34 – Argumentative texts. structure and characteristics 1. Firstly, the introduction may present the author’s main argument in two different ways: (a) as a thesis, that is, as 2. Secondly, the explanation of the issue under consideration sets up the beginning of the ‘body’ development An argumentative text has elements that affirm or deny certain ideas but this is done starting from different refutations, objections, questions both own and alien. An argumentative text presents a particular structure. Unlike other types of texts, the argumentative implies that this structure is very specific 3 How to write an argumentative text Let‘s practise a very popular text form at school: the argumentative essay which discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a problem. It consists of: 1. Introduction lead-in to the topic / question 2. Main body a) arguments in favour of (pros) + examples or explanations
Argumentative Essay Structure – Use My Helpful Outline Example
The main aim of Unit 34 is to present the issue of argumentative texts in terms of structure and main features. Our aim is to offer a broad account of what argumentative texts are and why they are used for in both linguistic and pragmatic terms, that is, argumentative text structure, how language and textual features are used to achieve the purpose of persuading and convincing the audience to wh om a rethorical or dialectical argumentation is addressed.
So, we shall divide our study in five main chapters. So, in order to establish the relationship between both concepts, we shall review 1 the notion of text linguistics since the analysis of argumentative texts is discussed within the framework of Discourse Analysis.
Accordingly, we shall provide 2 a definition of text and hence we shall examine a its main textual features common to all text types such as texture and ties and b the seven standards of textuality in order to get to the argumentative text structure of intertextuality.
Chapt e r 3 will offer then an insightful analysis of argumentative text structure texts in terms of 1 definition; 2 main types of description; 3 structure and 4 main textual devices within descriptive text types: a cohesion, regarding i grammatical, ii lexical and iii graphological devices, and b argumentative text structure. Chapte r 4 will be devoted to present the main educational implications in language teaching regarding argumentative texts and Chapter 5 will offer a conclusion to broadly overview our present study.
Finally, Chapter 6 will include all the bibliographical references used in this study. An influential introduction to the analysis of texts is based on relevant works of Argumentative text structure and Hasan, Cohesion in English ; van Dijk, Text and Context ; and Beaugrande and Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics The background for educational implications regarding argumentative texts is based on the theory of communicative competence and communicative approaches to language teaching are provided by Canale, From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy ; Hymes, On communicative competence In addition, the most complete record of current publications within the educational framework is provided by the guidelines in van Ek and Trim, Argumentative text structure ; B.
A Common European Framework of reference In fact, many fields have approached the study of texts, and in particular, that of argumentative texts : linguistics from grammar, morphology and phonologyanthropology different speech acts in different culturespsychology speaker and hearer behaviour and stylistics correctness, clarity, elegance, appropriateness, argumentative text structure, style.
Yet, the oldest form of preoccupation with texts and the first foundation for the analysis of texts and its articulation is drawn from the notion of text linguistics which has its historical roots in rethoricdating from Ancient Greece and Rome through the Middle Ages up to the present under the name of text linguistics or discourse.
Traditional rethoricians were influenced by their major task of training public orators on the discovery of ideas inventionthe arrangement of ideas dispositionthe discovery of appropriate expressions for ideas elocutionand memorization prior to delivery on the actual occasion of speaking, argumentative text structure.
In the Middle Ages, rethoric was based on grammar on the study of formal language patterns in Greek and Latin and logic on the construction of arguments and proofshence its relevance within our study. Rethoric still shares several concerns with the kind of text linguistics we know today, for instance, the use of texts as vehicles of purposeful interaction oral and writtenthe variety of texts which express a given configuration of ideas, the arranging of ideas and its disposition within the discourse and the judgement of texts which still depends on the effects upon the audience.
In addition, a text is best regarded as a semantic unit and not a argumentative text structure of form. First of all, the concept of texture is defined as the textual resource that functions as a unity with respect to its environment and secondly, ties are defined as the resources that English has for creating texture so as to contribute to its total unity by means of co hesive relations reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Perhaps the notion of textuality is the most relevant in our study since we reach the notion of argumentative text structure text through one of its seven standards: intertextuality.
Actually, argumentative text structure, written. texts conform to rules that most successful writers unconsciously follow and native readers unconsciously expect to find. It is relevant, then, to address the term textuality in written and oral texts as it is involved in rules governing written discourse hence its relationship to argumentative texts.
If any of these standards are not satisfied, argumentative text structure, the text is considered not to have fulfilled its function and not to be communicative. We shall briefly review the first six standards of textuality in relation to argumentative texts so as to analyse the seventh one in more depth in next section:. It also deals with cohesive ties as mentioned above anaphora, cataphora, ellipsis, etc and signalling relations tense and aspect, modality, updating, junction, conjunction, disjunction and subordination which prove essential in argumentative texts, argumentative text structure.
In other words, it gives sense to a text, argumentative text structure. Here we meet the purpose of argumentative texts, that is, to convince the audience about a universal truth which is presented briefly and clearly.
Here a set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text argumentative text structure some use or relevance for the receiver in an appropriate context of communication agreement or disagreement in argumentation. unexpected or known vs. unknown or uncertain by means of content words verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs. Hence specific lexical devices in argumentative texts adversative conjunctions, declarative verbs. in opinion essays. There exist the prerogative of presenting alternative opinions about peop le, objects and events in live presentations and hence, objective and subjective argumentations.
Intertextualit y concerns the factors which make the use of one text dependent upon knowledge of one argumentative text structure more previously encountered texts, that is, argumentative text structure ways in which the production and reception of a argumentative text structure text depends upon the participants knowledge of other texts. The usual mediation is achieved by means of the development and use of text typesbeing classes of texts expected to have certain traits for certain purposes: narrative, descriptive, expository, dialectic and, for our purposes, argumentative.
For 2, years there have been two traditions of classifying texts. The first one, deriving. More specific, it refers to modes of discourse realized through text types, thus narration, description, directive, exposition and argumentation. Within the second tradition, rethoric refers to communicative function as rethorical strategies in functional lines: argumentative: to promote the acceptance of certain be liefs ; descriptive: to enrich knowledge spaces; narrative: to arrange actions and events; and so on.
In this section we shall approach the concept of text typology from two main perspectives: 1 the main criteria for text typology by means of which we review basic principles for all types of texts regarding textual devices, order and sequence elements and common text structures; and 2 a text type classification and argumentation. There are argumentative text structure main criteria when establishing a typology for texts: textual argumentative text structure, order and sequence elements and common text structures for all types of texts.
For such reasons, texts may have a wide range of interpretative possibilities. Moreover, basic to the concept of form is the notion of order and sequence, which may vary depending on the type of text. For instance, introduction, development and conclusion in argumentative texts, logical, chronological, or psypchological in narrative texts; from general to specific, upward and downward direction, personality vs.
physical appearance in descriptive texts; and so on. By studying the textual and argumentative text structure elements of text types, one can learn to regularly recognize the overall structure of a text.
Following a general division of any kind of text we may sometimes begin with a brief heading or title, with or without a byline, argumentative text structure, an epigraph or brief quotation, or a salutation, argumentative text structure, such as we may find at the start of a letter. They may also conclude with a brief trailerbyline, or signature. Elements which may appear in this way, either at the start or at the end of a text division proper, are regarded as forming argumentative text structure class, known as divto p or divbot respectively.
We may classify texts in two ways. Firstly, according to purposeand argumentative text structure, according to type or mode. According to purpose, in terms of communicative functions, the discourse is intended to inform, express an attitude, persuade and create a debate.
According to type or mode, the classification distinguishes among descriptive, narrative, expository, instrumental, and argumentative modes. Hence, in this study we are dealing with argumentative texts which, on the one hand, are intended to persuade and convince the audience in terms of communicative functions and, on the other hand, according to the category or text types it is included within the type of argumentation, that is, the fact of supporting or disagreeing with a statement whose validity is questionable or contentious, argumentative text structure.
Now let us examine argumentative texts more in depth regarding their structure and main features. Chapte r 3 will offer then an insightful analysis of argumentative texts in terms of 1 definition; 2 main types of argumentation; 3 structure and 4 main textual devices within argumentative text types: a cohesion, regarding i grammatical, ii lexical and iii graphological devices, and b coherence.
An argumentative text is usually defined as a type of discourse concerned with the presentation and evaluation argumentative text structure arguments, either rethorical or dialectical, which show the cause-effect relationship established in an event or theory. Moreover, argumentative texts may vary depending on the type of audience they are addressed to, for instance, non-specialized audience appealing to common sense and common principles, values and places or to a specialized group where the basis for agreement is more specific.
With this audience in mind, the argumentative discourse may take the form of a discussion, an interview, a speech, an essay, an opinion letter, a letter or a book on literary criticism among others. Basically, we can distinguish three types of argumentative texts depending on the social character or the rational character of argumentation: first, a subjective argumentation; second, an objective ar gumentation also called scientific ; and finally, other types of argumentation, argumentative text structure.
It must be borne in mind that in current society, argumentation is always present at all levels, that is, in the domains of literature fiction and in everyday life non- fiction. Hence the orator starts by posing implicitly or explicitly the argumentative text structure to be dealt with so as to organise the arguments which will lead him to a relevant conclusion.
Actually, argumentative text structure, the speaker refers to a particular system of knowledge and his point of view is expressed mainly by means of presupposit ions and connotations, which produce informal, persuasive, ironical, appreciative or pejorative arguments. Due to the use of dialectics, this type of argumentation is especially frequent.
Hence it is namely found in oral and written discourse. Thusin oral discourse we find it in political speeches, debates, interviews, informal conversations, radio and TV reports whereas in written discourse we namely find it in letters, press articles, opinion columns, business letters, and so on.
On the other hand, the objective-type also called scientific type is related to the cognitive process of formally judging about a given problem. Similarly to the subjective type, the orator starts by posing implicitly or explicitly the problem to argumentative text structure dealt with so as to organise the arguments which will lead him to a relevant conclusion.
However, alike the subjective- type, scientific argumentation refers to the methods based on established facts and obeys to well established laws. Hence, we may find research documents, experiments, direct observations, fieldwork reports, analysis which are reflected on statistics, tables, diagrams, illustrations, photos, argumentative text structure, maps and so on. In general, scientific argumentation has a mixture structure, where other text-types are involved, such as expository, explanatory and argumentative sequences, and very seldom do we find a scientific discourse exclusively.
Hence scientific argumentation usually appears in relation to expositions, explanations, definitions or interpretations of a given argumentative text structure. Hence we may find :. This technique is used in commentary texts, argumentative text structure, which may give more informatio n on specific subjects or offer a different point of view on a subject by holding to true values newspaper complaint column, discussions, footnotes, argumentative text structure.
Hence, there is a clear dissociation between the given arguments. This technique is namely used in scientific texts which tend to be more specific as the main argument is supported by verifiable facts or statements NASA reports on Mars, formal letters, lectures, bibliographies.
The structure of argumentative texts, which seek to persuade and convince the audience, cannot be a sequence of disordered arguments. Yet, it must follow some principles of order regarding the way arguments are grouped so as to present an organized sequence of selected and reasonable arguments which lead the author to be effective and persuasive.
There are, argumentative text structure, though, a common sequence of arguments for all types of humanistic discourse exposition and argumentation : issue selection and kind of work, argumentative text structure, seeking information, argumentative text structure, work planning, writing down of the argument, and finally, presentation.
Hence, we shall focus on the first one issue selection and kind of work since it is from this notion that we get three types of work depending on the theme re sume, research, argumentation and in particular, our current theme: argumentation and sequence structure.
The sequence of argumentation is quite frequent in essay writing since it is a dialectic form from classical dialectic and rethoric. It may be oral or written and is aimed to convince the audience in a reasonable way of a universal truth, idea or thought, almost always questionable. The fact of being questionable brings about the essence of argumentation: to present a suggesting and polemic argument for the audience to accept and feel interested in it.
Argumentative text structure the thesis is placed at the beginning of the argument. Here the encoder moves from the context to the text, that is, the thesis is related to a general proposition cause- effect which in turn is related to a particular one which serves argumentative text structure proof.
The conclusion then is a synthesis of the two propositions, argumentative text structure. Argumentative texts have two essential components: on the one hand, the thesis the idea or theory that the author presents as a universal truth in a relevant, brief and clear way and the body of argumentation which forms the rest of the text with a sequence of arguments which aim to validate the previous step the thesis. Arguments then may be classified into two: positive argumentative text structure, which are aimed to reinforce the truth of the thesis based on relevant authors; personal experiences; or analogy and negative arguments aimed to refuse those arguments or ideas agains the main thesis to be developed.
According to classical guidelines, argumentative texts will develop then positive and negative arguments pros and cons following six main steps: introduction, issue explanation, outline of the argument, proof, refutation and conclusion 1. The author must use the beginning of his text not to write about the issue in general argumentative text structure to gain the argumentative text structure sympathy, argumentative text structure.
The outline of the argument. This third step establishes the difficult points of the argument which must be presented in a concise, organized and coherent way so as to establish the relationship between the different parts of the argument by means of argumentative text structure elements or discourse deixis. Moreover, at this point, argumentative text structure, the effectiveness of the argument may be improved once the audience is better informed. They invite the audience to reflect on them and consider the given bibliographic references so as to enhance the relevance of their arguments.
This is the reason why students E. and Bachillerato are asked to present their argumentative essays within the structure of expository texts in three different parts :. introduction, development and conclusion whereas argumentative presentations originally had six argumentative text structure 1 introduction, 2 issue explanation, 3 out line of the argument, 4 proof, 5 refutation, and 6 conclusion B, argumentative text structure.
Similarly, refutation may establish the main unacceptable ideas or opposite thoughts to that of our main issue, and therefore, raise argumentative text structure interest on the part argumentative text structure our audience.
How to Write an Argumentative Essay - Planning
, time: 5:5010 CHARACTERISTICS OF ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY - All about essay
3 How to write an argumentative text Let‘s practise a very popular text form at school: the argumentative essay which discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a problem. It consists of: 1. Introduction lead-in to the topic / question 2. Main body a) arguments in favour of (pros) + examples or explanations An argumentative text has elements that affirm or deny certain ideas but this is done starting from different refutations, objections, questions both own and alien. An argumentative text presents a particular structure. Unlike other types of texts, the argumentative implies that this structure is very specific · Argumentative essays should have a straightforward structure so they are easy for readers to follow. The goal of an argumentative essay is to clearly outline a point of view, reasoning, and evidence. A good argumentative essay should follow this structure
No comments:
Post a Comment