A Rhetorical Analysis of Argumentation and Language Teaching

The above remarks are quite enough to show the importance of rhetorical argument in the law, at least with regard to the common law. The study of reasoning and argument seems particularly useful for the students concerned. On the one hand, it is important knowledge for understanding the discipline, and the other he is a professional competence necessary for debate. But beyond discussions directly related to discipline, argumentative approach also seems to be directly useful for the improvement of language skills.

At the lexical level first, argumentative orientation should be considered as part of the meaning of words. Since all the words in context can be considered as argumentative, examples can be multiplied indefinitely. Even Thatcher was susceptible. During the 1980s, she demanded the BBC not to announce, after the terrorist attacks, the IRA has Claimed responsibility but rather say has Admitted responsibility (Poulakos). Also, she always insisted on the importance of community support, but refused to hear the poll tax. The everyday speech often brings this kind of against-orientation between words that apparently refer to the same state of facts (Flexibility versus precarity, national sovereignty over government power; terrorist versus freedom fighter, etc.).

Because the argumentative orientation implies constraints on the sequences, we must also admit that the argument is not a separate phenomenon, independent of language skills, but is expressed directly in the language, in terms of grammar. Indeed, we find that the argumentative modifiers needed some guidance and preventing others. Next, we also note that some modifiers have the function to reverse the argumentative orientation (few / Hardly) while others merely mitigate (Olmsted). The basic idea seems fairly clear (it corresponds to the distinction between the bottle half full and half empty bottle), but this can give rise to problems, for example when translating sentences as being more or treated less favorably or enthusiasm relative to negative orientation in French. Note in passing at the level of sequences, the same modifier can direct statement in either direction, depending on its position in the sentence.

Thus, there is a slow improvement, with the adjective epithet position goes to an optimistic conclusion, whereas if the improvement is slow, everything goes wrong. The theory of argumentation in language is sometimes challenged on a theoretical level, but that does not undermine the conclusion that the argument must be taken into account in language teaching, as well as syntax (Hyde). It is possible to devise suitable exercises, classified according to the different levels.

At the elementary level first, argumentative pairings allows you to work precisely on the possible sequences, and thus the reasoning. Using this exercise, you can check the understanding of a text, or by combining the arguments and conclusions are drawn, either by combining the arguments and against-arguments mentioned by the author. Then the student must express itself argumentative movement (written or oral), using the appropriate connectors (so, therefore, since, Because, Because of), and the relevant structures, including unreal conditional (if he was rich, he Would be ...