Analysis of argumentative texts prepared by Chilean students of pedagogy

Román, Ivonne Fuentes; Zapata, Maritza Farlora

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

SECTION: ARTICLES • Educ. Pesqui. 45 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634201945197601 copy

Analysis of argumentative texts prepared by Chilean students of pedagogy ^* Ivonne Fuentes Román is a Doctor and Master in Linguistics, an undergraduate and postgraduate university academic, currently dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Playa Ancha. Specialist in the production and comprehension of texts, she is part of research teams as a principal researcher and co-researcher, with internal and external financing associated with these lines of study, as well as being an expert consultant for the Teacher Evaluation System at a national level. Maritza Farlora Zapata is a Doctor in Linguistics from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (Chile), a university academic with a degree in Literature and Linguistics, and a Spanish teacher from the same institution. She teaches undergraduate and postgraduate students and has focused her professional career on teaching and researching the development of comprehension and writing skills of university students.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Within the framework of academic discourse, this research contributes to the study of argumentation as a discursive genre and a modality of thought widely used in the discursive practices of higher education students. The aim of the study is to analyse the pragmatic-dialogical and discursive-textual dimensions of argumentative writings produced by Chilean students of the first year of Pedagogy. The global coherence was reviewed by relating the theses with the arguments proposed and considering the use of prototypical connectors of this discursive modality. The corpus, made up of 217 texts of first-year students, was analysed quantitatively using the free software Antconc to determine the frequency of use of prototypical features. Subsequently, a random selection of the corpus was analysed in terms of its discursive and pragmatic assessment of use. The results describe the textual options, the structure, types of arguments and the pragmatic relevance of the texts, giving account of the most widespread anomalous practices revealing flaws in writing for argumentative purposes. It is considered that an argumentation-focussed approach to academic discourse written by future educators contributes in a systematic and transversal way to their training, which is not only relevant to improve the quality of their written communications, but is valuable in that it collaborates with the development of critical thinking skills, considered central to the learning of scientific disciplines (ARCHILA, 2012) and teaching (DOMINGO, GÓMEZ, 2014).

Argumentation; Academic writing; Discursive competence

Discourse markers	Definition	Classification
Information structuring devices	They lack argumentative meaning, their function being the informative organization of discourses.	Organisers: Their function is to associate discourse segments as parts of a single comment, based on a numeration, according to space or time. Commentators: introduce a new comment related or not to the main topic. Digressive markers: introduce a comment that becomes a side issue in relation to the main theme of the discourse, and they can be considered pertinent or may bear little or no relation to the previous information.
Reformulators	They present with a clearer expression the segment of the discourse in which they occur.	Explicative markers: present the segment in a different way. Markers of rectification: the second segment corrects or improves the first. Distancing devices: assure that the first segment is not relevant. Recapitulating markers: present the second segment as a conclusion of the previous segments.
Connectors	Semantically and pragmatically link one segment of the discourse with another segment to serve as a guide to the inferences between the connected segments.	Additives: connect two segments with equal argumentative orientation. Consecutives: present a segment as a consequence of the previous one. Counter-argument markers: link two segments of discourse, with the second being eliminated or presenting less force before the conclusion drawn from the first; soften the argumentative force of the previous segment; present a contrast or contradiction between subordinate segments; introduce contrary conclusions or eliminate certain conclusions.
Argumentative operators	They condition the argumentative possibilities of the segment.	Argumentative reinforcement: they reinforce the segment in which they are faced with other possible arguments. Concretion: they present a segment as an example of something more general.

Texts in total	Texts with argumentative features	Texts without argumentative features
217	169	48
100%	78%	22%

Dimension	Description	Linguistic features
Pragmatic-dialogical	Construction of the situation framework of argumentation as a dialogic communicative practice that is evidenced in the use of dialectical procedures that define the degree of commitment of the writer with what has been stated.	Use of Spanish personal pronouns: yo, nosotros ; First-person singular and first-person plural endings.
Discursive-textual	Review of the transition between the proposed thesis and the arguments presented for the achievement of the global communication purpose, considering the strategies at the textual level that are made evident through the use of connectors and discourse markers, as well as their functional relevance.	Types of arguments: through negation, emotive language, causal arguments, through generalisation, through analogy, through exemplification. Coherence between theses and arguments. Argumentative fallacies: hasty generalization, begging the question, false analogy, false cause, ad populum . Spanish argumentative Connectors: Sin embargo, pues, por lo tanto, por tanto, pues, por ejemplo, por ende, esto es, incluso.

Linguistic feature and percentage of occurrence	Functional description	Classification	Example of use
Sin embargo (15%)	Introduces a counterargument	Refutative restrictive counter argumentation	“ People have the right to a better well-being., However (Sin embargo), these animals are not to blame ” (Written Corpus Argumentative text: TA, cast. 29)*.
Pues (14%)	Introduces a justification oran argument in the form of an explanation. Functions as a reformulator	Argumentative operator. Introduces explanation.	“[...] Something more important is also the welfare of the dogs, since (pues) they do not choose to be in the street s” (Corpus TA, cast 13).
Por lo tanto (11%)	Functions as a conclusive connector	It allows linking the statements that accompany the thesis, reinforcing it with a guarantee.	“[...] does not influence this person’s work performance; therefore (por tanto), they should allow her to present herself as a woman, if this makes her feel comfortable ” (Corpus TA, eba 3).
Incluso (8%)	Functions as an additive connector	Argumentative reinforcer	“ Since ancient times, dogs are a great example of the benefits that arise from interacting with an animal; canines are even (incluso) especially considered ‘man’s best frien d’” (Corpus TA, mus 6).
Esto es (7%)	Functions as a reformulator	Categorises what is stated through reformulation.	“ That they would be well received and accepted; that is (esto es) the hallmark and we should all respect it ” (Corpus TA, his 26).
Por ende (6%)	Functions as an inclusive connector	Allows a conclusion constructing the Enthymeme.	“ All animals are living beings; consequently (por ende), we do not have the right to kill them ” (Corpus TA, bio 3).
Por ejemplo (5%)	Introduces an argument of exemplification	Argumentative operator of concreteness	“ Many good things can come of this like for example (por ejemplo), some students that are more open to diversity ” (Corpus TA, Inglés 21).

Structure	Example	Explanation
Presenting a macroargument	“In Valparaíso the issue of street dogs has always been a problem that has affected the community, with attacks, rabies, fleas, ticks and mange being some pathologies brought by poor stray dogs. But we are the real problem, because the city dog is practically a pet rather than a street animal, and if they are wandering the streets and multiplying, it is due to their neglect and abandonment. This is why we are mainly responsible for their future infestation.… In short, the poor Street dog is unaware of what it does unlike human beings, and we are the main problem, not them” (Corpus TA, bas 7).	An argumentative construction is observed which gives account of a prototypical structure, presenting a thesis, arguments and then a conclusion that reformulates the thesis in order to reinforce it.
Introducing an argument or piece of information.	“With regard to the role played by the school in the problem, it is necessary to maintain respect for the decision that the person has made, since ( puesto que ) rejecting their life choice could also be taken as discrimination [...]” (Corpus TA, bas 3).	An argument or a piece of information is introduced in the form of a hypothetical statement that has an implicit guarantee, which implies that the argumentation maintains its formulation on the hypothetical level regarding what could happen if the proposed thesis were not complied with.
Accompanyingthe opinion, thesis or conclusion.	“[...] does not influence this person’s work performance; therefore (por tanto), they should allow her to present herself as a woman, if this makes her feel comfortable”. “There is a real dilemma in the face of the imminent attack of dogs, (...), people lose patience when faced with such acts. As a result ( por consiguiente ), the pressure of the people becomes evident before a government that has precariously responded “(Corpus TA, cast 21).	In these cases, the connectors allow linking the statements that accompany the thesis, reinforcing it through their guarantee. In the first case, the hypothetically formulated arguments are presented in the form of what should be allowed. In the second case, it is a concrete example of connection between arguments that support a thesis.
Suggesting the general rule.	“Nobody can deny ( Nadie puede negar ) the great problem there is not only in Valparaiso, but throughout the country with respect to stray dogs” (Corpus TA, epa 10).	In the following example the guarantee is made explicit by stating a general rule. However, when analysing the content of the text, it can be pointed out that even when it responds with the wording of a general rule, it is not such and becomes a fallacy.
Introducing modality or a qualifier.	“Clearly ( claramente ), people have a right to better welfare” (Corpus TA, cast 29).	Explicitly, a modalizer or qualifier is presented, which in this case reinforces the idea enunciated and serves as support for the thesis.
Mentioning the source or authority.	“A published study showed ( Un estudio publicado exponía ) that seventy percent of the dogs found on the street are abandoned pets. With the registry of responsible ownership, the problem could be addressed in a more meticulous way” (Corpus TA, efi 24).	In the example it is made explicit that there is a source of authority that allows sustaining the argument through specific support, but it is not made explicit which and it loses its validity.
Offering a reservation	“[…] the university should take a more active role as a “trainer of trainers”. Nevertheless ( no obstante ), it is a joint task that allows clarifying issues, knowing and accepting ourselves” (Corpus TA, hist 29).	In the following example, the connector allows introducing a reservation about the thesis, establishing restrictions that are not specified, because it indicates the responsibility that the university holds without indicating with whom it shares the task.
Providing a reinforcement for the justification.	People see the reality of stray dogs as a situation that is harmful to them and to the dogs themselves, and in fact ( y de hecho ), you do not need to be an expert to see that health problems, such as rabies or ringworm, are a reflection of that “(Corpus TA, cast 30).	In this example, a guarantee is presented as a reinforcement for the thesis that is based on common sense.
Adding a counterargument.	But who has a wider worldview? As an initial response it could be the transgender, who it appears shows an acceptance of transgender peers and therefore, the impression that she would accept all sorts. On the contrary ( Por el contrario ), we could say that the people who reject this person in a working capacity have a more backward worldview [...] “(Corpus TA, cast 2).	Through the connector an opposite argument is introduced in order to give greater strength to the proposed thesis, claiming that those who do not share the thesis are backward. Arguably, the weight of the argument places it among the ad populum arguments.

Types of argument	Discourse function	Problem or error	Example
By negation	Counter-argumentative in as much as the opposite argument is presented in the form of a dichotomy.	A hasty generalization is made by a negation that creates a polarized argument.	“Although these cases occur in which an aggressor and a victim participate in an act of violence, there is no doubt that social opinion may differ from the law or rights; no matter how much the masses of people think that the aggressors do not deserve respect, the laws and constitutional rights defend all people equally, whatever their condition”(Corpus TA, eba 209).
Ad populum	Appeals in the form of an emotional construction to achieve the support of the reader.	Use of hyperbolic resources in order to place greater emphasis in the form of emotional impact on the recipient, with the weight of the argument lying in the impact it causes on the recipient.	“This problem has got out of control because of the large number of abandoned dogs in very poor conditions and with diseases, thus causing a serious environmental problem which not only affects the aesthetics of the city but may also affect people’s health”(Corpus TA, eba2).
Causal	A causal relation of the arguments is established that allows justifying the thesis, or a cause can help explain the thesis and thus substantiate it.	It corresponds to those cases in which a cause and a consequence that are not linkable are related in an argument. In this example the argument is constructed through a causal relationship that does not contribute to sustain the thesis.	One of the main reasons is the abandonment of these faithful animals, maybe due to the lack of ethics and judgement of the individuals ‘responsible’ for them”(Corpus TA, eba 4).
By generalisation	It allows presenting particular points of view as general to validate the thesis.	It corresponds to those cases in which an argument is raised by generalization without sufficient evidence to support it. In this case there is a polarisation of ideas that does not allow a middle ground.	“So, what is more feasible, to create an awareness in humans or to incriminate ourselves before dogs?” (Corpus TA, eba 221).
By analogy	Comparing one element with another to give more emphasis and substance to the thesis.	In this case, arguments are presented with elements that cannot be compared.	“Both the dog and the human being have the same right to be born, to grow up, to live and to die due to the natural conditions of each living being, to be surrounded by a free environment and in the necessary conditions to develop all the kinds of skills that they possess” (Corpus TA, eba 12).
By exemplification	Substantiates the thesis through particular examples that tend to move towards generalisation.	In this case the generalisation lies in attributing to stray dogs the sole cause of the insanitary aspect of a place.	“It is a fact that the low health standards present in the streets of the city are greatly contributed to by stray dogs, who take over public squares and land, leaving the place very unsightly besides being dirty and smelly, putting citizens’ health at risk” (Corpus TA, eba 13).

Author inscription through the first-person singular	Author inscription through the first-person plural	Author neutralisation through the third person
“Certainly for me the dog hunting issue has no place in my opinion as a living and intelligent being that walks the earth; the abandonment of the animals is not their fault, but that of their owners who did not take responsibility in pet ownership”(Corpus TA, ebavesp 14). “The dog isman’s best friend, and will never abandon you, which is why I cannot understand how unscrupulous individuals can exist who are capable of abandoning a friend”(Corpus TA, ebavesp 14). “Certainly the problem that affects our city today passes through the whole system in which it follows, that is, it is not only a matter of abandonment that certainly leaves much to be desired, but also the authorities have not created a prevention plan against the huge reproduction of the stray dogs of Valparaíso “(Corpus TA, eba 13).	“If we look at the beginnings of the lives of these dogs, many are born or begin to grow up inside a home, whose families take care of them and give them a roof, but there comes a time when the animal becomes a problem for the human being, it makes you waste a lot of time, expense, space, and endless other things, which make the person take the cruel decision to abandon the dog”(Corpus TA, eba 214). “These animals are in the streets thanks to the bad attitude of the human being, we forget them as if they were an old toy or something that has gone out of fashion; looking at them they remind us day by day that they live in those places and conditions thanks to people like us , if the inhabitants of this port complain about the alleged plague of dogs, they must realize that the solution is in our hands “(Corpus TA, eba 5).	“Currently, the population of stray dogs has grown excessively, which is a nuisance for both human beings and animals. This is mainly caused by the carelessness of both the owners and the Municipality. To this effect, it is necessary to raise awareness and create a culture in the community, and consider this as more than an aesthetic and superficial issue. We must give importance from the health perspective and take into account that dogs are living beings and therefore have rights. One must attach importance to the sanitary perspective and take into account that dogs are living beings and therefore have rights . To resolve this issue, it is necessary to place the value and respect that the case deserves, and to this end it is essential that the municipality and the community are committed and act for the common good, in order to help and save the animals, and so that this situation is not repeated (…que no se repita) . One of the initiatives to end this dilemma is that people stop abandoning their animals, that if they acquire a pet, they are able to act as responsible owners. Another key initiative is for the Municipality to implement a free veterinary service, so that people can treat their sick dogs, and they can also sterilise them so as not to have unwanted pets, which they will later abandon ”(Corpus TA, cast 6).

Faculdade de Educação da Universidade de São Paulo Av. da Universidade, 308 - Biblioteca, 1º andar 05508-040 - São Paulo SP Brasil, Tel./Fax.: (55 11) 30913520 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revedu@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Ivonne Fuentes Román is a Doctor and Master in Linguistics, an undergraduate and postgraduate university academic, currently dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Playa Ancha. Specialist in the production and comprehension of texts, she is part of research teams as a principal researcher and co-researcher, with internal and external financing associated with these lines of study, as well as being an expert consultant for the Teacher Evaluation System at a national level.

Maritza Farlora Zapata is a Doctor in Linguistics from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso (Chile), a university academic with a degree in Literature and Linguistics, and a Spanish teacher from the same institution. She teaches undergraduate and postgraduate students and has focused her professional career on teaching and researching the development of comprehension and writing skills of university students.