Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adam, Jean-Michel
    1992Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan Université.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.I: 531–543. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 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). 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑02292‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-02292-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bal, Mieke
    (1985) 1997Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of the Narrative, second edition. Toronto / Buffalo / London: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2018Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2019 Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Argumentation33: 153–171. 10.1007/s10503‑019‑09478‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09478-y [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. 2021 Examining Argumentative Style. Present volume. 10.1075/jaic.20022.eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20022.eem [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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, March4–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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, June18–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyland, Ken
    2017 Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?Journal of Pragmatics113: 16–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewiński, Marcin & Dima Mohammed
    2019 The 2015 Paris Climate Conference: Arguing for the fragile consensus in global multilateral diplomacy. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1): 65–90. 10.1075/jaic.18017.lew
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18017.lew [Google Scholar]
  17. Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
    2019 Environmental Argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1): 1–11. 10.1075/jaic.00004.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00004.int [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. 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. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Richards, I. A.
    1936 [1965]The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rodrigues, Soledade , Marcin Lewinski & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
    2019 Environmental manifestoes. Argumentative strategies in the ‘Ecomodernist Manifesto’. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1): 12–39. 10.1075/jaic.18036.rod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18036.rod [Google Scholar]
  22. Sales, Hazel E.
    2006 Executive Summaries, inProfessional Communication in Engineering: 214–240. Hampshire / New York: Mac Millan Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230625143_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625143_9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Spronck, Stef & Tatiana Nikitina
    2019 Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology23(1): 119–159. 10.1515/lingty‑2019‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Herold
    2019EU 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 theEuropean 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
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error