Argumentative structure and persuasive discourse strategies in the Malaysian secondary school english debate finals
Academic debate in schools and higher learning institutions is a formal activity that helps develop students’ speaking skills and refine their argumentative skills. In order to debate effectively, debaters must understand the fundamental characteristics of a debate especially in relation to the u...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/83410/1/FBMK%202019%203%20-%20ir.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Academic debate in schools and higher learning institutions is a formal activity that
helps develop students’ speaking skills and refine their argumentative skills. In order
to debate effectively, debaters must understand the fundamental characteristics of a
debate especially in relation to the use of persuasive language and master the
techniques for structuring arguments. The aim of this study is to examine persuasive
discourse in Malaysian school debates with regard to argumentative structure,
persuasive discourse strategies and the combination of both to affect persuasion. The
findings of the study are expected to make preparation and planning for debate more
effective. This research design is qualitative using the case study approach. The data
collection of this study involves a video recording of the National Level Secondary
Schools Debate Finals 2012. The video recording of the debate finals was subjected
to discourse analysis. Three models were used for the analysis of the data. The first
model, Toulmin’s (2003) Argumentative Structure, was used to analyze the structure
of the arguments. The second model, Johnstone’s (2012) persuasive discourse
strategies, was used to analyze the discourse strategies used in the debate. Aristotle’s
modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos and logos) (in Cockcroft, 2005) were used to
examine the modes for persuasion used in the structure of the arguments and in the
persuasive discourse strategies. The findings show that there are notable differences
between the two debating teams with regard to argumentative structure. The
government team (the winning team) had at minimum four elements out of six
required in the argumentative structure compared to the opposition team that had a
minimum of three elements. The number and type of elements in the argumentative
structure determines the relative strength of the arguments. The argumentative
structure used by both the teams reflected the logic reasoning (logos) of the
arguments. The findings also show a significant presence of persuasive discourse
strategies to achieve persuasion. Persuasive discourse strategies appeared three times
more in the arguments of the government team in comparison to the opposition team. The three strategies present were quasilogical, presentational and analogical, with
the presentational strategy being the most salient feature. All three strategies evoked
the pathos appeal of persuasion. The findings show that the use of both,
argumentative structure and persuasive discourse strategies result in the application
of logos and pathos, making persuasion work more effectively in school debates. |
|---|