, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 97–114 | Cite as

Argumentative Text as Rhetorical Structure: An Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory



Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), as a tool for analyzing written texts, is particularly appropriate for analyzing argumentative texts. The distinction that RST makes between the part of a text that realizes the primary goal of the writer, termed nucleus, and the part that provides supplementary material, termed satellite, is crucial for the analysis of argumentative texts.

The paper commences by determining the concept of argument relation (argument + conclusion) and by briefly presenting RST. It continues by identifying five of RST's rhetorical relations of the satellite/nucleus schema (Evidence, Motivation, Justify, Antithesis, Concession) as five argument relations, each being, logically or pragmatically, a special kind of argument: Evidence being a supportive argument, Motivation an incentive argument, Justify a justifier argument, and Antithesis and Concession persuader arguments. To illustrate, an analysis of three short texts concludes the paper.

Argument relation argumentative text persuasion rhetoical relation rhetorical structure text analysis writer's intention 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abelen, E., G. Redeker and S. A. Thompson: 1993, 'The Rhetorical Structure of U.S.-American and Dutch Fund-Raising Letters', TEXT 13, 323–350.Google Scholar
  2. Azar, M.: 1995, 'Argumentative texts in newspapers', in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. H. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSU Conference on Argumentation, University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, SicSat, Amsterdam, vol. 3, pp. 493–500.Google Scholar
  3. Azar, M.: 1997. 'Concession Relations as Argumentation', TEXT 17, 301–316.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, E. L.: 1995, 'Contrastive and Non-contrastive Connectives Metadiscourse Functions in Argumentation', Written Communication 12, 219–239.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, A. J.: 1992, 'Everyday Argumentation from an Informal Logic Perspective', in W. L. Benoit, D. Hample and P. J. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation, Foris, Berlin-New York, pp. 357–378.Google Scholar
  6. Brassart, D. G.: 1996a, 'Didactique de l'argumentation écrite: Approches psycho-cognitives', Argumentation 10, 69–87.Google Scholar
  7. Brassart, D. G.: 1996b, 'Does a Prototypical Argumentative Schema Exist? Text Recall in 8 to 13 Years Olds', Argumentation 10, 163–174.Google Scholar
  8. Brockriede, W.: 1990, 'Where is Argument?', in R. Trapp and J. Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation, Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
  9. Chittleborough, P. and M. E. Newman: 1993, 'Defining the Term “Argument”', Informal Logic 15, 189–207.Google Scholar
  10. Connor, U and J. Lauer: 1985, 'Understanding Persuasive Essay Writing: Linguistic/Rhetorical Approach', TEXT 5, 309–326.Google Scholar
  11. Crosswhite, J.: 1996, The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
  12. Ducrot, O.: 1992, 'Argumentation et persuasion', in W. De Mulder, F. Schuerewegen and L. Tasmowski (eds.), Enonciation et parti pris, Actes du colloque de l'Université d'Anvers (5, 6, 7 Fevrier 1990), Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 143–158.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory: A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Elhadad, M.: 1995, 'Using Argumentation in Text Generation', Journal of Pragmatics 24, 189–220.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, B.: 1987, Discourse Structure and Anaphora in Written and Conversational English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Golder, C. and P. Coirier: 1996, 'The Production and Recognition of Typological Argumentative Text Markers', Argumentation, 10, 271–282.Google Scholar
  17. Grize, J.-B.: 1981, 'L'argumentation: explication ou séduction', in L'argumentation, Presses universitaires de Lyon, Lyon, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
  18. Hovy, E. E.: 1991, 'Approaches to the Planning of Coherent Text', in C. Paris and W. Swartout (eds.), Natural Language Generation in Artificial Intelligence and Computational Linguistics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
  19. Knott, A.: 1991, New Strategies and Constraints in RST-Based Text Planning, Ms.C. Thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  20. Linden, K., S. Cumming and J. Martin: 1992, 'Using System Networks to Build Rhetorical Structures', in Proceedings, Sixth International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Heidelberg, Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Mann, W. C. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen: 1991, 'Functions of Language in Two Frameworks', Word 42, 231–250.Google Scholar
  22. Mann, W. C., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen and S. A. Thompson: 1992, 'Rhetorical Structure Theory and Text Analysis', in W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fun-Raising Text, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39–78.Google Scholar
  23. Mann, W. C. and A. Thompson: 1986, 'Relational Propositions in Discourse', Discourse Processes 9, 57–90.Google Scholar
  24. Mann, W. and S. Thompson: 1987, 'Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structure', in G. Kempen (ed.), Natural Language Generation, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
  25. Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson: 1988, 'Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization', TEXT 8, 243–281.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, J. R.: 1992, English Text — System and Structure, John Benjamin Publishing Co., Philadelphia-Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Matthiessen, C. and S. A. Thompson: 1988. 'The Structure of Discourse and Subordination', in J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds.), Clause Combing in Grammar and Discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 275–330.Google Scholar
  28. Moore, J. D. and C. L. Paris: 1993, 'Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information', Computational Linguistics 19, 651–694.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, J. D. and M. E. Pollack: 1992, 'A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-Level Discourse Analysis', Computational Linguistics 18, 537–544.Google Scholar
  30. O'Brient, T.: 1995, 'Rhetorical Structure Analysis and the Case of Inaccurate, Incoherent Source-Hopper', Applied Linguistics 16, 442–482.Google Scholar
  31. Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  32. Robrieux, J-J.: 1993, Eléments de rhétorique et d'argumentation, Dunod, Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Rosner, D. and M. Stede: 1992, 'Customizing RST for the Automatic Production of Technical Manuals', in Proceedings, Sixth International Workshop on Natural Language Geneneration, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, S. A. and W. C. Mann: 1987, 'Antithesis: A Study in Clause Combining and Discourse Structure', in R. Steele and T. Threadgold (eds.), Language Topics, Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, John Benjamins B.V., Amsterdam, vol. 2, pp. 359–379.Google Scholar
  35. Toulmin, Stephen: 1969, The Use of Argument, Cambridge University Press [1st edn. 1958].Google Scholar
  36. Wyatt, R. O. and D. P. Badger: 1993, 'A New Typology for Journalism and Mass Communication Writing', Journalism Educator 48, 3–1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Azar
    • 1
  1. 1.Hebrew Language DepartmentUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations