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

| “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galați
This study is a contribution to the recently introduced notion of argumentative style (van Eemeren 2019) 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 1992) 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.
Keywords: argumentative style, concluding stage of the critical discussion, detached argumentative style, pragma-dialectics, text (proto)type / text sequence
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
Published online: 04 February 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20023.gat
References
Adam, Jean-Michel
1992 Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan Université.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2006 Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bal, Mieke
(1985) 1997 Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of the Narrative, second edition. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van
2010 Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation 331: 153–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 Characterizing argumentative style: The case of KLM and the destructed squirrels. In R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), @Title. Argumentation Library.Google Scholar
2021 Examining Argumentative Style. Present volume. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
2017 Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 1131: 16–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2019 Environmental Argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8(1): 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. A.
1936 [1965] The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sales, Hazel E.
2006 Executive Summaries, in Professional Communication in Engineering: 214–240. Hampshire / New York: Mac Millan Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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, www​.oeko​.de] https://​www​.europarl​.europa​.eu​/RegData​/etudes​/STUD​/2019​/638428​/IPOL​_STU(2019)638428​_EN​.pdf