<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>The paper starts from the assumption that argumentation is a basic feature of everyday interaction; interlocutors resort to it to minimize disagreement, to resolve disputes, or to align the audience to the speakers’ point of view. In order to achieve this, speakers continually adjust themselves to their audience’s reaction, who play a major part in the process. The paper aims to analyse the arguments used during the opening stage of a training course for life insurance agents, arguments brought by the manager of the company providing the course. It considers their uses, structure, and linguistic realization. In terms of structure, the arguments are analysed in respect of their constituents – data, claim, qualifier, warrant, backing, and rebuttal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_ausp-2019-0018_ref_007_w2aab3b7b9b1b6b1ab1ab7Aa">Toulmin (2003)</xref>, while their linguistic realization is investigated at various levels – words, sentences, speech acts, and figures of speech. Using the data recorded during the training course, it selects the arguments that are considered more relevant with a view to identifying their function, structure, and lexical realization.</p></abstract>

The paper starts from the assumption that argumentation is a basic feature of everyday interaction; interlocutors resort to it to minimize disagreement, to resolve disputes, or to align the audience to the speakers’ point of view. In order to achieve this, speakers continually adjust themselves to their audience’s reaction, who play a major part in the process. The paper aims to analyse the arguments used during the opening stage of a training course for life insurance agents, arguments brought by the manager of the company providing the course. It considers their uses, structure, and linguistic realization. In terms of structure, the arguments are analysed in respect of their constituents – data, claim, qualifier, warrant, backing, and rebuttal (Toulmin (2003), while their linguistic realization is investigated at various levels – words, sentences, speech acts, and figures of speech. Using the data recorded during the training course, it selects the arguments that are considered more relevant with a view to identifying their function, structure, and lexical realization.

Argumentation in Training Courses – Form and Function

Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Argumentation in Training Courses \u2013 Form and Function"}

The paper starts from the assumption that argumentation is a basic feature of everyday interaction; interlocutors resort to it to minimize disagreement, to...

Argumentation in Training Courses – Form and Function

Publié en ligne: 21 janv. 2020

Pages: 151 - 163

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ausp-2019-0018

Mots clés
argument, function, structure, reconstruction, lexical realization

© 2019 Gabriela Chefneux, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Argumentation in Training Courses – Form and Function

Publié en ligne: 21 janv. 2020

Pages: 151 - 163

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ausp-2019-0018

Mots clésargument, function, structure, reconstruction, lexical realization

© 2019 Gabriela Chefneux, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Mots clés
argument, function, structure, reconstruction, lexical realization