Abstract
This theoretical expose explores the complex notion of argumentative style, which has so far been largely neglected in argumentation theory. After an introduction of the problems involved, the theoretical tools for identifying the properties of the discourse in which an argumentative style manifests itself are explained from a pragma-dialectical perspective and a theoretical definition of argumentative style is provided that does full justice to its role in argumentative discourse. The article concludes with a short reflection upon the next steps that need to be taken in argumentation theory in further substantiating the notion of argumentative style.
Highlights
The way in which arguers go about defending their standpoints to others often leads to remarks from bystanders as well as analysts concerning the “style” in which the argumentative discourse is conducted.1 All kinds of comments are given, varying from general characterisations of the arguer’s argumentative conduct and descriptions of striking properties to judgments of its appropriateness
I shall indicate how the choices made in the selection from the topical potential, the adaptation to audience demand and the exploitation of presentational devices that give shape to the strategic scenario that is to be realized in the argumentative discourse by utilizing these two argumentative styles may manifest themselves in real-life argumentative discourse in the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion in the use of argumentative moves, the choice of dialectical routes and the implementation of strategic considerations
The view propounded in this treatise is that argumentative styles represent specific ways in which in strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse the choices that are to be made regarding the selection from the available topical potential, the adaption to audience demand and the exploitation of presentational devices are dealt with
Summary
The way in which arguers go about defending their standpoints to others often leads to remarks from bystanders as well as analysts concerning the “style” in which the argumentative discourse is conducted. All kinds of comments are given, varying from general characterisations of the arguer’s argumentative conduct and descriptions of striking properties to judgments of its appropriateness. Sometimes the discussion of style concentrates on the style that is used in a particular speech event (e.g. in Trump’s inaugural address of 20 January 2017), sometimes on the individual style of a certain speaker or writer (e.g. Kennedy or Nabokov), and sometimes on the general characteristics of the style used in a certain type of communicative activity (e.g. love letters) or period (e.g. editorials in the 19th century)—usually viewed in comparison with other communicative activity types or periods These general observations may apply well to the notion of “argumentative style” that I am concerned with, but for dealing with argumentative style a different kind of perspective is needed. 2 discuss the concepts that need to be put in a theoretical perspective in describing these properties: the argumentative moves that are used, the dialectical routes that have been chosen and the strategic considerations that have been implemented Against this background, I shall in Sect.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
