Page 216 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 216
What Do We Know about the World?
separately, while parts and wholes are co-dependent. In the association-
al model the hearer is manipulated by false logical and ethical assump-
tions. The above argument can be sub-divided into subject/adjunct (a
quality, condition of a subject being its basis), lifestyle/status (an argu-
ment, the basis of which being lifestyle/status), place/function (place/
function taking the role of a premise), or time/activity (an argument re-
flecting people’s expectations and social rituals) association models of
argument (ibid.). Lastly, the root meaning category of argument typifies
one of the most manipulative models of argument, the persuader chang-
es the received meaning of a word used and searches for the hidden or al-
ternative meaning.
3.1.5. Models of Argument Versus Language of Politicians
After having examined two presidential debates held on 27th and 30th
June 2010, we can come to a number of conclusions. Firstly, there are sev-
eral models of argument which prevail in the political speeches – name-
ly, cause and effect, degree, genus and species, associational and opposition-
al (of dialectical nature); the rationale being its persuasive and emotive
functions, as well as vivid distinctiveness in the values and standpoint
the politicians have adopted. Secondly, the remaining models are either
too sophisticated and would require greater expertise or are not benefi-
cial enough to be used in the political discourse. Lastly, the choice of ar-
guments is highly dependent on loyalty and ideology of a politician, the
party s/he adheres to determines a line of attack he pursues.
Let us now provide a few examples of the above-mentioned models:
1/ definition model of argument, in which a generalisation is narrowed
down into a precise meaning:
(4) Jarosław Kaczyński: [...] privatization, as I have already said, conveys an
introduction of entirely different rules of the game. A private hospital will
have a possibility to sign an agreement with the National Fund, though it
will not be required, and there is every likelihood that such a situation will
take place that people belonging to a low income group will simply not have
an easy access to treatment, at least in their towns/cities.
2/ cause and effect model of argument, Bronisław Komorowski by means
of a conditional sentence explicates that the effect of a fall of a stand-
ard of living will be emigration to Great Britain – a simple effect
produced by a simple cause; in the second example granted that lib-
eral ideology is challenged, Poland will become a more prosperous
country – seemingly4 a simple effect of a simple cause:
4 I deliberately use the word “seemingly” for the argument is simple only in wording.
separately, while parts and wholes are co-dependent. In the association-
al model the hearer is manipulated by false logical and ethical assump-
tions. The above argument can be sub-divided into subject/adjunct (a
quality, condition of a subject being its basis), lifestyle/status (an argu-
ment, the basis of which being lifestyle/status), place/function (place/
function taking the role of a premise), or time/activity (an argument re-
flecting people’s expectations and social rituals) association models of
argument (ibid.). Lastly, the root meaning category of argument typifies
one of the most manipulative models of argument, the persuader chang-
es the received meaning of a word used and searches for the hidden or al-
ternative meaning.
3.1.5. Models of Argument Versus Language of Politicians
After having examined two presidential debates held on 27th and 30th
June 2010, we can come to a number of conclusions. Firstly, there are sev-
eral models of argument which prevail in the political speeches – name-
ly, cause and effect, degree, genus and species, associational and opposition-
al (of dialectical nature); the rationale being its persuasive and emotive
functions, as well as vivid distinctiveness in the values and standpoint
the politicians have adopted. Secondly, the remaining models are either
too sophisticated and would require greater expertise or are not benefi-
cial enough to be used in the political discourse. Lastly, the choice of ar-
guments is highly dependent on loyalty and ideology of a politician, the
party s/he adheres to determines a line of attack he pursues.
Let us now provide a few examples of the above-mentioned models:
1/ definition model of argument, in which a generalisation is narrowed
down into a precise meaning:
(4) Jarosław Kaczyński: [...] privatization, as I have already said, conveys an
introduction of entirely different rules of the game. A private hospital will
have a possibility to sign an agreement with the National Fund, though it
will not be required, and there is every likelihood that such a situation will
take place that people belonging to a low income group will simply not have
an easy access to treatment, at least in their towns/cities.
2/ cause and effect model of argument, Bronisław Komorowski by means
of a conditional sentence explicates that the effect of a fall of a stand-
ard of living will be emigration to Great Britain – a simple effect
produced by a simple cause; in the second example granted that lib-
eral ideology is challenged, Poland will become a more prosperous
country – seemingly4 a simple effect of a simple cause:
4 I deliberately use the word “seemingly” for the argument is simple only in wording.
