ARGUMENTATIVE SPEECH: CHARACTERISTICS, STRUCTURE, EXAMPLES - LITERATURE - 2025

The argumentative discourse can be defined as a traditional form of discourse whose main objective is to convince or persuade an audience about the validity of a viewpoint, opinion or thesis.

There are different approaches to analyzing this type of discourse. Each of them is based on different aspects - such as persuasion strategies, effects or context - to approach the object of study.

For example, from the linguistic perspective, argumentative discourse is more than a series of logical operations and thought processes. It is also a construction from different means (lexical, formal).

For its part, the communicative approach places the emphasis on the context where the communication situation occurs, as well as on the effect it produces on the audience.

Within the dialogic-interactive approach, argumentative discourse is the way to influence others. This implies participating in the speaker-recipient exchange, even if the dialogue does not occur effectively.

Finally, the stylistic approach uses rhetorical figures that have an impact on the listener, and the textual approach studies the use of logical processes (syllogisms, analogies, and others) within the framework of discourse.

characteristics

Multiplicity of contexts

The argumentative speech does not occur in a specific context. There are many discursive activities where it can appear, and each of them affects the structure of the discourse and the strategies used.

Thus, this type of speech can be used in more formal situations (such as a debate between political candidates) or less formal (such as a discussion about sports preferences between friends).

Furthermore, it can be presented by oral means (eg parliamentary discussion on a bill) or written (such as an opinion piece in a newspaper).

Dialogical nature

Regardless of whether there is an effective interaction with the addressees, the argumentative discourse is constructed from an explicit or implicit dialogue with the audience.

When this dialogue is not given directly, the issuer uses certain strategies such as anticipating possible objections to his argument or identifying possible coinciding points.

Intentional, conventional and institutional character

In this communicative act, the issuer directs the statements so that they are interpreted in a certain way. Therefore it has an intentional character.

It is also conventional and institutional, insofar as the statements have distinctive marks (such as the use of certain connectors or expressions such as "I think") and specific techniques are used (the arguments).

Inductive or deductive

Argumentative discourse employs both inductive techniques (moving from observations about particular things to generalizations) or deductive (moving from generalizations to valid inferences about particular matters).

Hypothetical and conjectural

This type of speech raises one or more hypotheses about a specific issue. These can be the pros and cons of a statement or thesis, the possibility that a statement is true or false, among others.

So these are conjectures on which you can agree or disagree. It is not about the truth or falsity of an assertion.

Argumentative discourse structure

In general, the structure of the argumentative discourse depends on the communicative situation. However, four fundamental elements can be identified: introduction, exposition, argumentation and conclusion.

In the first instance, in the introduction the general presentation of the topic under discussion is made. Its purpose is to familiarize the audience or recipient with the context.

A second element is the exhibition, which presents the thesis, point of view or opinion to defend. Generally, it is one or two sentences that establish a position on a certain topic.

Then, the argumentation is presented, that is, reasons to support the thesis. In the case of an inductive structure, the order is reversed: first the argumentation and then the thesis.

Finally, the conclusions or results of the argument are presented. The objective of these conclusions is to reinforce the thesis. Some argumentative speeches end with a call to act in a certain way.

Examples

Argumentative speech against the prohibition of the use of firearms

“It's a cliche, but it's true: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Firearms are a tool, and they can be used for better or for worse.

Weapons can certainly be used to commit robbery, murder, and terrorism. However, there are also legitimate uses for firearms: sports, hunting, hobbyist collection, and personal protection.

It is important to note that disposing of a particular tool will not prevent people from committing acts of violence.

Instead, the root causes that lead people to commit violence must be addressed, including serious consideration of whether the mental health system is working as it should.

Argumentative speech in favor of the prohibition of the use of firearms

“In 2017, there were 427 mass shootings in the United States and more than 15,000 people were killed in firearm-related incidents, while more than 30,000 people were injured.

It's true that banning (or at least restricting) civilian-owned weapons would not completely eliminate gun violence, but would make it less likely. It would also save tens of thousands of lives.

It is very rare for a mass shooting to be stopped by an armed civilian. There have been cases in which potential shootings have been prevented. However, armed citizens are more likely to make the situation worse.

For example, the first authorities to respond and the people around them can become confused as to who the shooter is.

Additionally, gun owners are more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than an intruder.

On the other hand, contrary to what some people think, weapons are not a defense against tyranny. The rule of law is the only defense against tyranny.

The idea that armed militias could topple a professional army is far-fetched. The capacity gap between civilians with small arms and modern armies is now huge. "

References

1. Vacca, J. (2012). Modes of Discourse. Taken from learning.hccs.edu.
2. Campos Plaza, N. and Ortega Arjonilla, E. (2005). Panorama of Linguistics and Translation Studies: Applications to the Teaching of French, Foreign Languages ​​and Translation (French-Spanish). Cuenca: University of Castilla - La Mancha.
3. Cros, A. (2005). Oral argumentation. In M. Vilà i Santasusana (Coord.), Formal oral discourse: Learning contents and didactic sequences, pp. 57-76. Barcelona: Grao.
4. Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolinguistics and pragmatics of Spanish. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
5. San Miguel Lobo, C. (2015). Adult Education: Communication Area II. Spanish language and Literature. Madrid: Editex.