Advertisement

From Analysis to Presentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Writing Argumentative Texts

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Rob Grootendorst
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

In this chapter, we outline a theoretical framework for developing strategies for writing argumentative texts. In much of the literature on writing more is said about the preconditions for writing and the principles for pedagogy than about the ways in which writing problems can be solved. Authors who do pay attention to writing problems usually do so in an unmethodical way, and their recommendations are based on common sense rather than theoretical considerations. We attempt to offer an alternative that is based on our pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The strategies we propose can be used by a writer in order to transform an analytic overview of the argumentation to be conveyed into a comprehensible and acceptable argumentative text. First is explained what one should imagine the various presentation transformations to be, then is shown, by way of concrete examples, exactly how the strategies involved are put into practice. Thus, it is made clear that the pragma-dialectical approach provides an opportunity to develop a methodical perspective which, so far, is lacking in the practical literature on writing.

Keywords

Analytic Transformation Communicative Rule Primary Text Analytic Overview Argumentative Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beale, W. H. (1986). Real writing. Argumentation, reflection, information. (2nd ed.). Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
  2. Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. In D. Galbraith & G. Rijlaarsdam (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing [Special issue]. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 109–143.Google Scholar
  3. Couzijn, M. J. (1995). Observation of writing and reading activities: Effects on learning and transfer. Dordrecht: Dorfix.Google Scholar
  4. Couzijn, M., & Rijlaarsam, G. (1996). Learning to read and write argumentative tekst by observation. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh, H. & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research (pp. 253–273). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Flower, L. S. (1981). Problem solving strategies for writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  7. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 45–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Hillocks, G., Jr., (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, Il.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.Google Scholar
  10. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Murray, D. M. (1999). Write to learn (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Naess, A. (1975). Communication und Argumentation. Eine Einführung in die angewandte Semantik [Communication and Argumentation. An introduction into applied semantics]. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (1996). Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rowan, K. E. (1988). A contemporary theory of writing. Written communication, 5(1), 23–56.Google Scholar
  16. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Stewart, K. L., Kowler, M. E., & Bullock, C. (1987). Essay writing for canadian students (2nd ed.). Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992) (Eds.), Special issue of the review argumentation on “Relevance”. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  21. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zaresky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Witte, S. P., & Cherry, R. D. (1986). Writing processes and written products in composition research. In C. A. Cooper, & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 112–153). Beverly Hills etc.: Sage. Written Communication Annual. An International Survey of Research and Theory 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of Amsterdam and New York UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations