1

Argumentative text type

Paola Catenaccio

Lingua inglese 1 – LIN

2009-2010

2

• Key structure: communicating about the validity of relations between concepts– comment– scientific argumentation

In either of the two text forms the encoder starts from the implicit or explicit statement of a problem.

He poses the question of how a given fact should be classified by proposing relations between this fact and conflicting concepts of systems of thought.

3

4

5

6

7

8

Text type: argumentation

Text type argumentation Text form (1) comment,

(2) scientific argumentation Function Proposing relations between concepts of phenomena. Proposition

in opposition to deviant or alternative propositions

Relation to cognitive process

Judging in answer to a problem

9

Point of view

Person (1) Personal (first-person singular) (2) Non-personal third person, first person plural point of view (first-person singular point of view)

Style (1) informal, ironical, appreciatory, depreciatory, persuasive; (2) argumentative, formal, technical

Presentation (1) Subjective (2) objective

Focus Verb form Present tense Aspect Simple

10

Composition

Thematic text base

(Negated) quality-attributing sentence phenomenon identifying sentence

Introduction Antithetical introduction Text structuring

Deductive syllogism, Inductive abstraction, Dialectical difference

Sequence forms

contrastive resultative terminators

Distribution Comment: discussion, debates, TV discussions, leading articles Scientific argumentation: frequent in combination with expository text forms (explication, definition or text interpretation)

11

Compositional plan

• Syllogistic argument

The encoder derives the evidence for the favoured thesis from an accepted general proposition which is related to a particular proposition, so that the thesis can be deduced as a conclusion from them:

12

general proposition A x B

particular proposition C x A

conclusion C x B

Tutti i filosofi (A) sono uomini (B)

Socrate (C) è un filosofo (A)

Socrate (C) è un uomo (B)

13

1. Rejected view

Some people claim that St. Paul’s is no longer needed as a public school in London.

2. favoured thesis

But we think that St. Paul’s still serves an important purpose outside the state school system.

14

3. evidence for the favoured thesis:

• general proposition

The great English public schools are generally accepted as having both a high academic record and developing the individual to the best of his abilities.

• Particular proposition

St. Paul ranks among the great public schools in England

15

4. Conclusion

therefore St. Paul still serves an important purpose outside the state school system.

16

Factual argument

the encoder derives the evidence for the favoured thesis from particular facts and then deduces a conclusion through a generalization from the listed particulars

17

1. Rejected view

Some people claim that St. Paul’s is no longer needed as a public school in London.

2. favoured thesis

But we think that St. Paul’s still serves an important purpose outside the state school system.

18

3. evidence for the favoured thesis:

particular facts:

• St. Paul’s has excellent teachers.

• It produces many scholarship winners for university places.

• Old boys hold leading position in public life.

19

4. Conclusion

Therefore St. Paul still serves an important purpose outside the state school system.

20

Rejected viewfavoured thesis

Evidence in the syllogistic argument:

General propositionParticular proposition

Evidence in the factual argument:

Particular facts

conclusion

21

Focus on the Enron case:

Problem :

Enron’s behaviour

22

• Enron responds to Andersen testimony

• Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2001

• Houston – Enron Corp. (NYSE: ENE) said today that the comments made by an ANdersen executive at a Congressional hearing were generally supportive of Enron’s good faith and propriety in the preparation of its financial statements.

• “Enron engaged in real time audit procedures with its auditors on every significant structured finance vehicle,” said Kenneth L. Lay, Enron chairman and CEO. “It has always been Enron’s policy to be open with its accountant, Andersen.”

• As to one special purpose entity, Andersen said it had been unaware of arrangement relevant to that entity off-balance sheet treatment. Enron noted, however, that it was the company’s management, not Andersen, that discovered the arrangement and its relevance and reported it to Andersen within 24 hours.

• In addition, Enron referred the matter to the previously formed Special investigative Committee of the Board, which hired separate counsel that, in turn, hired separate accountants. That Special Committee is continuing its work to determine the facts and the proper remedial actions. Enron is determined to get to the bottom of these issues and began work on that effort before Andersen’s advice.

• Separately, Lay sent a letter on Dec. 11 to Rep. Michael Oxley, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, explaining why he was not able to attend today’s hearings due to the conflict with the organizational meetings of creditors, also scheduled for today (the letter can be viewed at www.enron.com/pressroom/oxleyletter.pdf).

23

• Rejected view:

Enron is guilty of irregularities in its finacial statements

• Favoured thesis:

Enron acted in good faith

> (Enron is not guilty)

24

Evidence for the favoured thesis:

1. Real time audit procedures/open with its accountant

2. It was Enron that reported the only one episode of off-balance treatment to Anderson

3. Enron formed an internal investigative committee.