Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 10, Issue 1, 2021

This introduction to the special issue devoted to argumentative style describes the way in which this collection of six papers came about. It recapitulates the main thrust of the issues that are included. All authors share the pragma-dialectical perspective on argumentative style set forth in the first contribution, in which argumentative style is connected with strategic manoeuvring. In analysing argumentative styles, they concentrate on different kinds of argumentative discourses and have a different emphasis in carrying out their analyses.

In this theoretical expose, it is argued that the notion of argumentative style is more encompassing and at the same time more specific than the more familiar notion of linguistic style. According to van Eemeren, argumentative styles always have three dimensions: the selection of standpoints, starting-points, arguments or other argumentative moves (topical choice dimension), the adjustment of argumentative moves to the frame of reference and preferences of the listeners or readers (audience demand dimension), and the choice of verbal or non-verbal means for advancing argumentative moves (presentational dimension). In argumentative discourse, the three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves in the argumentative moves made in trying to resolve a difference of opinion (analytic overview), the dialectical routes chosen in making these argumentative moves (argumentative pattern) and the strategic considerations brought to bear in this endeavour (strategic design). Van Eemeren explains what this means in practice by discussing the distinctive features of the three dimensions of two general categories of argumentative styles that can be regularly encountered, in one variant or other, in argumentative discourse: detached argumentative styles and engaged argumentative styles.

According to van Eemeren’s expose about the theoretical notion “argumentative style” (2019: 153–171), each of the four stages of an argumentative exchange in a certain institutional context can have its own argumentative style, but all of them may well belong to the same general category (for instance, “detached” or “engaged”). As the start of a broad project investigating argumentative styles used in the spokespersons’ argumentative replies at the regular press conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this paper focuses on the uncompromising confrontational style prototypically used by the spokespersons in responding to journalists, which is characterized by argumentative moves instrumental in strategies of silencing the other party, distracting the other party, and pressuring the other party. By means of an analysis of three argumentative replies given by Chinese spokespersons, this paper shows how this particular confrontational style takes shape and facilitates the spokespersons’ confrontational maneuvering by being at the same time detached.

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.

This paper shows that reframing of conflict can be considered as a constitutive element of a “reconciliatory argumentative style” (van Eemeren, 2019), which is typical of dispute mediators, whose aim is to steer parties towards the resolution of their conflict. On the basis of a systematic empirical analysis of mediation cases, we first show that reframing encompasses a change of issue, which may or may not be justified by arguments. Then, we show how it is functional to the three aspects of mediators’ strategic manoeuvring, being used consistently by mediators in their effort to help parties solve their conflict on the basis of reasonable discussion.

Argumentative style is assumed to be instrumental to the implementation of an arguer’s strategic plan to resolve a difference of opinion in his/her favor. One important constitutive element of argumentative style are linguistic choices. It is therefore crucial to pay close and systematic attention to linguistic choices and their argumentative functions in the analysis of argumentative style.

In this paper we discuss how a linguistic-stylistic analysis can be conducted systematically by making use of methodological insights from the so-called “linguistic-stylistic approach”, and how such an analysis can be integrated with a pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse. Our aim is to show how such an integration could be helpful in analysing the presentational aspect of an argumentative style, and how the outcomes of such an analysis could be linked to another aspect of argumentative style, namely the strategic considerations implemented in the argumentative discourse and more particularly the argumentative strategies involved.

This study responds to van Eemeren’s (2019, 2021) call for research on the prototypical argumentative styles used in particular domains or communicative activity types by particular individuals or groups. It explores the argumentative style of Dutch politician Geert Wilders in presenting populist arguments, i.e., arguments claiming that if many people hold a certain standpoint, this standpoint should be accepted. A corpus study of 27 texts taken from the website of Wilders’s political party reveals four characteristics of this presentation that deviate significantly from the general descriptions of this type of argument given in the textbooks: (1) absence of indicators, (2) implicit standpoint, (3) wide range of verbs to indicate what “the people” think or believe, (4) use of a construction indicating that the speaker is acting as a mouthpiece (“on behalf of the people, I say”).