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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Also process-oriented is the textbook by Murray (1999).
- 2.
Although some authors with empirical pretensions seem to suggest that the structure that is the basis for text construction is directly derived from reality, such structural outlines fulfill the function of an ideal model. In several studies it has been shown convincingly that structural outlines of, for example, a literary review or a policy document can be useful for improving the presentation of texts. See Hillocks Jr. (1986).
- 3.
We agree with Beale (1986) that argumentation is fundamental to all writing, but this is, of course, not to say that all writing problems can be dealt with by concentrating on argumentative texts. The advantage of developing a method for (re)writing argumentative texts is that we have an ideal model available that can serve as a starting-point. To develop methods for (re)writing the various types of non-argumentative (parts of) texts, other models are needed.
- 4.
As Naess (1975, 48–51) observes, writing for different purposes and for different audiences can involve a difference in ‘Intentionstiefe’ (depth of intention).
- 5.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume here that the analytic overview represents an adequate defense of the writer’s case, and refrain from going into the problems of dialectical evaluation and detection of fallacies treated in van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992, 93–217).
- 6.
To validate the writing strategies, empirical research will be needed, for example, making use of a pre-test/post-test design.
References
Beale, W. H. (1986). Real writing. Argumentation, reflection, information. (2nd ed.). Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co.
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.
Couzijn, M. J. (1995). Observation of writing and reading activities: Effects on learning and transfer. Dordrecht: Dorfix.
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.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flower, L. S. (1981). Problem solving strategies for writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
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.
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.
Hillocks, G., Jr., (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, Il.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, D. M. (1999). Write to learn (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Naess, A. (1975). Communication und Argumentation. Eine Einführung in die angewandte Semantik [Communication and Argumentation. An introduction into applied semantics]. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.
Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Couzijn, M. (1996). Effective teaching and learning of writing. Current trends in research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Rowan, K. E. (1988). A contemporary theory of writing. Written communication, 5(1), 23–56.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, K. L., Kowler, M. E., & Bullock, C. (1987). Essay writing for canadian students (2nd ed.). Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall.
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.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992) (Eds.), Special issue of the review argumentation on “Relevance”. Dordrecht: Reidel.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (2015). From Analysis to Presentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Writing Argumentative Texts. In: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20955-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)