Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Faculty of Education and Psychology
Summary of the Doctoral (PhD) Dissertation
The World Universities Debating Championship Format: A Move-Based and Contextual Analysis
by
Gergely J Tamási
Supervisor: Dr Krisztina Károly, PhD habil.
2012
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Faculty of Education and Psychology
PhD School of Education (Director: Dr Éva Szabolcs, PhD habil.)
PhD Programme in Language Pedagogy (Director: Dr Péter Medgyes, DSc)
The World Universities Debating Championship Format: A Move-Based and Contextual Analysis
by
Gergely J Tamási
Supervisor: Dr Krisztina Károly, PhD habil.
Members of the Defence Committee:
Dr Kristóf Nyíri, CSc (Chair)
Dr Dorottya Holló, PhD habil. (Referee)
Dr Ágnes Magnuczné Godó, PhD (Referee)
Dr Éva Illés, PhD (Secretary)
Dr Péter Medgyes, DSc (Member)
Dr Enikő Németh T., CSc (Member)
Dr Pál Heltai, CSc (Member)
2012
1
Introduction
Argumentation has been widely regarded as an “essential ‘tool’ for life in western,
democratic societies” (Combs, 2004, p. 55). Discussion and debate are present everywhere
from the society at large, where the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary are all based
on argumentation, to the more closed academic circles, where scholars are expected to
acquire and demonstrate skills in critical thinking, reasoning, and debate (cf., Popper, 1945,
on critical rationalism). Because of this dependence on argumentation, curricula in tertiary
education, mostly in the West, have featured explicit instruction in argumentation or
argumentation-based genres albeit this instruction has predominantly targeted the written
form of argumentation.
Although the presence of instruction in written argumentation has already enabled
practitioners to hone their students’ skills in critical thinking and related skills, oral
argumentation has also been called for in the classroom, both in secondary and tertiary
education (Farrow, 2006). On the one hand, in tertiary education, the lack of oral
argumentation is perturbing. Kim (2006) conducted research on East Asian students studying
in tertiary education in the United States and argues that English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) courses should include more oral work that simulate task types (e.g., debates) from
content courses the students encounter. Gring (2006) argues that speeches all inherently
feature argumentation. On the other hand, what applies more to English as a foreign language
(EFL) classrooms, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), is that students already at the Threshold (B1) level
should be able to “briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions, plans, and actions” (p.
59), while by the time they reach the Vantage (B2) level, they must be able to “develop an
argument systematically with appropriate highlighting of significant points, and relevant
2
supporting details” (p. 59). Consequently, in Hungary, the Vantage-level Matura examination
in modern foreign languages, inspired by the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), now incorporates a compulsory “For and Against”
(i.e., debate) task, as a result of which there has been a revived interest on the part of EFL
(and other modern foreign language) instructors to introduce debating into their classrooms
(Tamási, 2008a).
The aim my research is to establish a grounded theory regarding the way in which
academic debaters participating in the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC)
construct their opening speeches. There are three terms that are in need of a definition here:
grounded theory, academic debate, and the WUDC format of academic debate1. Firstly,
grounded theory research is “a method of conducting qualitative research that focuses on
creating conceptual frameworks … through building inductive [italics added] analysis from
the data” (Charmaz, 2007, p. 608). What lies at the heart of this method is the conviction that
“concepts and theories are constructed by researchers out of stories that are constructed by
research participants who are trying to explain and make sense out of their experiences and/or
lives, both to the researcher and themselves” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 10).
Secondly, Freeley and Steinberg (2005) define academic debate as the following:
Academic debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates
have an academic interest, and the debate typically is presented before
a judge or an audience without direct power to render a decision on the
proposition. In fact, in academic debate the judge is instructed to
disregard the merits of the proposition and to render a decision on the
1 The label used for the sub-genre by the parent discourse community is British Parliamentary Debate (BPD) format; however, for the sake of clarity and in order to prevent confusion with applied debate taking place in the British Houses of Parliament, the format in the present dissertation will be referred to as the WUDC format, although the format itself is employed in most of the debate tournaments organized for students of tertiary education in the world.
3
merits of the debate [italics added]. The purpose of the debate is to
provide educational opportunities for the participants. (p. 15)
Freeley and Steinberg contrast academic debate with applied debate (i.e., debates where the
audience has “the power to render a binding decision on the proposition”, p. 15, such as
presidential, judicial, television, etc. debates); however, their definition might still encompass
any type of debate that takes place in academic life, be them vivos, conference presentations,
or panel discussions. It is important to note, although, that the present dissertation does not
purport to investigate such a variety of genres, nor does it claim that the findigs will be
applicable to such diverse genres. Instead, it proposes to investigate a given format of
academic (educational) debate.
Thirdly, the WUDC format is a format of academic debate which features four teams
of two speakers (two teams on the proposition side and two teams on the opposition side),
with the first speaker of the proposition team beginning the debate and the second speaker of
the second opposition team ending it. Each speaker delivers one 7-minute speech, the first
and last minute of which is protected, that is, it may not be interrupted by members of the
teams on the other side. During the intermediary 5 minutes, on the other hand, the speaker
holding the floor may accept points of information, that is, “a brief statement or question to
an argument claim, example, or other point that is being made by the speaker” (Meany &
Shuster, 2002, p. 206). At the WUDC, teams usually receive the propositions to be debated
15 minutes before the round commences, and speakers do not have any preparation time
between the subsequent speeches. To paraphrase the aim of the research, with these
definitions in mind, I have attempted to carry out an inductive, qualitative investigation on
the way in which WUDC participants explain the reasons behind their methods of speech
construction (cf., Charmaz, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008), in an academic debate format that
calls for (a) superior argumentation skills because the debates are judged based on the quality
4
of arguments advanced as opposed to the judges’ perception of the truth value of the
proposition (Freeley & Steinberg, 2005) and (b) a significant amount of spontaneity because
it places time pressure on the participants (Meany & Shuster, 2002).
Researching academic debate and, more specifically, the WUDC format, is important
because (a) forensics is underresearched as a field (Croucher, 2006; Herbeck, 1990), (b) the
WUDC format is one of the most widespread formats of academic debate in the world, (c) the
results would also be transferable to other formats, and (d) the research would also be
relevant for oral argumentation pedagogy. Firstly, there is a research void in forensics. As
Croucher (2006) argues, research on academic debate (and forensics in general) has focused
predominantly on practical essays on teaching debate and running forensics programmes,
with some papers examining the future of and ethics behind forensics, yet there are very few
studies that expand the field of communication theory itself (see also Herbeck, 1990).
Secondly, when choosing a format to research, the WUDC format is probably the most
widely utilized format of academic debate in the world. Apart from the WUDC itself, “the
premier debating event in the world” (Cirlin, 2002, p. 82), the European Universities
Debating Championships (EUDC) and thereby the majority of the other national and
international debating events forerunning the WUDC and the EUDC have adopted this
format as the standard. Thirdly, not only would the results of the analysis be relevant for
debaters following this particular format of debating, but the outcomes of the research could
also be transferred to other formats. Because of the similarities in terms of speakers’ roles
and responsibilities, the results will also be applicable to secondary school debate formats,
such as the World Schools debate format or the Karl Popper debate format (cf., Driscoll &
Zompetti, 2003). Lastly, in Hungary the study would have practical implications for those
involved in argumentation pedagogy, which has lost touch with international trends for the
past decade (for more details on this, see Tamási, 2008b). With only manuals of
5
argumentation to rely on, it is important to grasp the opportunity to research debate with a
view to outlining good practices and possibly shedding practices that have been passed over
on the international scene. However, the outcomes of the research could also inform
international argumentation pedagogy, where Dean (1990) calls for “pedagogical articles
written with a clear purpose … and which are supported by existing communication research
and theory” (p. 35). Therefore, researching academic debate is beneficial for a number of
reasons.
Not only is it important to conduct research on academic debate, but it is also
necessary to specifically study the generic characteristics of academic debate as a genre.
Firstly, the study extends the scope of inquiry in the field of spoken genre analysis to include
another genre in addition to academic lectures (e.g., Camiciottoli, 2004; Jung, 2006; Lee,
2009; Morell, 2004; Thompson, 2003), classroom discourse (e.g., Csomay, 2005), academic
presentations (e.g., Morita, 2002), dissertation defences (e.g., Recski, 2005), and conference
presentations (e.g., Edwards, McMasters, Acland, Papp, & Garrison, 1997; Webber, 2005),
that is, the spoken academic genres that have been predominantly subjects to detailed inquiry
previously. More importantly for the EFL/EAP classroom, however, genre-based instruction
(and approaches building upon genre analysis, e.g., Crossley, 2007) has yielded mostly
positive results. Especially, the North American school of genre studies (e.g., see Freedman
& Medway, 1994), has been instrumental in translating findings from (rhetorical) genre
research into concrete classroom implications. For example, Faigley and Hansen (1985),
albeit for writing, argue that if teachers are serious about providing adequate instruction for
their students, instruction must be preceded by the rhetorical analysis of the genre texts. Hyon
(2001) also conducted a follow-up interview study with eight participants on an EAP reading
course which featured genre-based instruction. Her results indicate that explicit genre-based
instruction may facilitate aspects of L2 reading and writing; therefore, it is hoped that EFL
6
teachers may utilize the findings of the study in their daily teaching activities to help students
plan and construct, and thus be more successful with, their individual long turns and
ultimately develop their overall discourse competence (cf., Canale, 1983). Thirdly,
researching academic debate provides a unique opportunity for the field of genre analysis, as
the acquisition of the generic competence in this case is not bound up with the acquisition of
professional expertise, as it is the case in other professional contexts (Bhatia, 2004). Thus,
researching academic debate allows the genre analyst to focus purely on the acquisition of
generic knowledge, without interference from professional expertise. Therefore, a genre
analytical approach seems to be particularly suited to the analysis of academic debate and,
more specifically, the WUDC academic debate format.
Lastly, out of the numerous methods that could be used to perform a genre analysis, it
needs to be clarified why the grounded theory method is the most appropriate for the
investigation. As it has been pointed out by Bhatia (2004), the evolution of genre theory can
be characterized as a move from the focus on (a) the “textualization of lexico-grammar” (p.
4), through the focus on (b) the “organization of discourse” (p. 4), ultimately to the focus on
(c) the “contextualization of discourse” (p. 4), that is, a “quest for thicker descriptions [italics
added] of language use …, where an attempt is made to offer a grounded [italics added]
description of language use” (p. 22). Although expert feedback has long been an
indispensable part of genre analysis (Bhatia, 1993), as Bhatia (2008) argues, rarely have
studies working within the field taken the context of discourse into account; therefore, she
calls for a more extensive use of ethnographic methods in the analysis of genre. Because the
grounded theory method emphasises the importance of (a) placing the experience in the
larger context and (b) “describing the process … of action” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 17),
it is particularly suited for the purposes of the investigation required.
7
Research question
In order to fill the research niches outlined above, in my dissertation I aimed to
answer the following research question:
• How do expert debaters at the World Universities Debating Championship
(WUDC) construct their opening speeches in terms of rhetorical (move)
structure as a manifestation of context?
At first sight, this research question may seem rather broad; however, as Corbin and
Strauss (2008) argue, (a) in order to provide the researcher “with sufficient flexibility and
freedom to explore the topic in some depth” (p. 25) and (b) because concepts in qualitative
studies are researched because there is an insufficient amount of information at our disposal,
it is necessarily so. The research question above, on the other hand, does outline the
population/event to be researched as well as the focus of the study; therefore, it should be
sufficient as a point of departure in the construction of a grounded theory.
The choice of focusing on a part-genre of academic debates, on the other hand, is not
without precedent; other studies that have set out to investigate a given genre have also
focused on the introductory sections of those respective genres. Swales (1990), for example,
has focused on the introductions of research articles; moreover, in the field of spoken genre
analysis, the studies conducted on academic lectures have also focused on the introductions
to these lectures exclusively (Aguilar, 2004; Rowley-Jolivet & Carter-Thomas, 2005;
Thompson, 1994). Moreover, this choice to focus on the opening speeches has been
motivated by the nature of the investigation conducted. Because one of the aims has been to
compare actual practice with textbook descriptions of academic debate, only the part-genre
that is actually covered in the academic literature could be analysed.
8
Data collection
Bhatia (1993, 2004) outlined seven steps that are involved in the systematic
description of a genre that has not yet been subjected to analysis. First, the genre text should
be placed in a situational context. Second, the literature available should be extensively
researched. This involves reviewing (a) the linguistic analyses that have already been
conducted on the given genre, (b) manuals and handbooks that are relevant for the discourse
community investigated, and (c) discussions focusing on the discourse community
investigated. Third, the situational/contextual analysis should be refined. This step will
include the precise definition of “the speaker …, the audience, their relationships and their
goals” (Bhatia, 2004, p. 164). Fourth, an appropriate corpus needs to be chosen. The
appropriateness of the corpus is evaluated based on the (a) comparability of the texts and (b)
the size of the corpus as determined by the aim of the study. On the one hand, Bhatia (2004)
emphasizes the importance of the precise definition of the genre text, which will be the
criterion based on which texts will be included in or excluded from the corpus. On the other
hand, he also stresses that the depth of the analysis proposed will also determine the optimal
size of the corpus: if the aim is to establish generalizations, then a few surface features will
probably be tested on large corpora; however, if the aim is to provide an exploratory
investigation, then a few randomly chosen texts should suffice. Fifth, the “textual,
intertextual and interdiscursive perspective” (p. 165) should be investigated. This step
basically refers to the choice of the level of analysis the researcher wishes to perform, be it at
the level of (a) lexico-grammar, (b) text patterning, (c) cognitive or discourse structuring, or
(d) intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Sixth, an ethnographic analysis should be conducted.
The aim of the analysis, among others, is to shed light on the physical circumstances that
affect the genre. Last, the institutional context should be studied. To satisfy these
requirements, the proposed study will make use of three kinds of data: (a) manuals and
9
guidebooks published by the discourse community (i.e., handbooks on debating), (b) analysis
of video recordings of actual debate performances, and (c) interviews with expert debaters.
Firstly, handbooks on debating (Driscoll & Zompetti, 2003; Freeley & Steinberg,
2005; Meany & Shuster, 2002; Wood & Goodnight, 1995; Ziegelmueller & Kay, 1997) and
discussions on academic debate (Allen & Dowdy, 1984; Amsden, 2003; Birkholt & Diers,
2004; Gordley, 2003; McGee, et al., 2002; Morris, 2005) have been reviewed in the
dissertation. According to Bhatia (2004), this type of literature, apart from contextualizing the
research, may provide useful insights in (a) refining the contextual analysis, (b) ethnographic
analysis, and studying the institutional context. Moreover, Corbin and Strauss (2008) also
strongly advocate the use of both technical and non-technical literature in grounding theories.
In the analysis of the experience of Vietnam veterans, for example, extensive use was made
of both kinds of literature (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Secondly, a small corpus of actual first proposition speeches was compiled. The
corpus contains N = 10 transcribed speeches recorded at the WUDC in the past 3 years,
which ensures the comparability of the performances and thereby cater for the transferability
of the results. The speeches chosen have been delivered by the debaters who have advanced
to the elimination rounds at the WUDC and who thus have been among the best debaters in
the world in the given year; therefore, the speeches in the corpus may be regarded as the
state-of-the-art in speech construction today. In line with the rules of the WUDC format, the
speeches were between 7:00 minutes and 7:20 minutes in length. Because my aim with the
corpus was to explore discourse structuring (cf., Bhatia, 2004), “a few randomly chosen
texts” (Bhatia, 2004, p. 165) were sufficient for this purpose. Once again, using observation
in grounded theories has been strongly advocated by Corbin and Strauss (2008). As they
claim, “observations put the researcher where the action is, in a place where they can see
what is going on” (p. 30).
10
Thirdly, interviews with participants of former WUDC-style events have been
conducted. The expert interviews may provide useful data for (a) the contextual analysis, (b)
the ethnographic analysis, and (c) studying the institutional context (Bhatia, 2004). Because
interviews have been carried out to support data collection in these three fields and because
grounded theory methods are characterized by theoretical sampling (see below), the interview
protocols have been developed and refined in parallel with the analysis of the first two data
sources (i.e., the literature and the recorded debates).
The four participants for the interviews were expert debaters, with extensive practice
in the WUDC format. All four participants have been involved in debating in excess of five
years during their secondary school studies and/or as regular attendees of a university debate
club in Budapest, Hungary, and apart from being familiar with the WUDC format, they also
had exposure to other formats of academic debate (primarily, the Karl Popper debate format).
Move analysis of the Prime Minster speech
In the following, the moves that have thus been created through a cyclical, inductive
procedure will be introduced, along with the steps that comprise the individual moves as well
as the sub-steps (when applicable) that may realize the individual steps. Throughout the
analysis, continuous reference will be made to the handbooks and manuals that are used by
the parent discourse community in order that a comprehensive picture of individual moves
and steps may be gained as regard their functions and the ways in which they are constrained
in the format (Bhatia, 1993, 2004).
The grounded theory, that is, the move-step structure I am proposing comprises three
moves and a number of steps that constitute these individual moves. The three moves that
have been identified are the following: (a) Setting the scene (Move 1), (b) Justifying the plan
(Move 2), and (c) Closing the scene (Move 3). In the following section, the steps that
11
comprise these moves will be reviewed. (The full move structure of the speech, along with
definitions and examples, is included in Appendix 1.)
The first move, that is, “Setting the scene,” comprises six steps. Firstly, upon being
offered the floor, the Prime Minster speaker may attract the attention of the audience and the
adjudicators present (Step 1). During the speech, the Prime Minister may point out a harm
that necessitates a certain kind of action to be taken (Step 2), possibly making reference to its
significance (Step 3); however, if even they decide to structure their speech without reference
to an explicit harm, it is their obligation to present an interpretation to the motion (Step 4) as
well as establish a framework for the debate (Step 5). Prime Minister speakers, generally,
close their introduction by previewing the arguments that they and (potentially) their partner,
that is, the Deputy Prime Minister may present (Step 6).
The second move that has been identified in the data I have termed “Justifying the
plan.” While presenting the arguments prepared during preparation time, the Prime Minister
will necessarily provide constructive arguments in order to prove the motion as interpreted by
the Opening Government team (Step 1). Secondly, the Prime Minister speaker may, already
in the opening speech of the debate round, respond to any potential attacks they envisage
against their arguments (Step 2).
The last move that emerged from the data is “Closing the scene” (Move 3). In this
move, Prime Minister speakers have firstly summarized the arguments that they have
presented in Move 2, “Justifying the Plan” and subsequently, either implicitly or explicitly,
they have restated the motion. These two functions of the last move will be referred to as
Step 1 and Step 2, respectively.
12
Findings and conclusion
The grounded theory that has been established based on the analysis of speeches that
were delivered at the WUDC and a series of interviews with expert debaters outlines a three-
part structure consisting of “Setting the Scene,” “Justifying the Plan,” and “Closing the
Scene.” These moves are, in turn, realized by a number of optional and obligatory steps. An
important finding of the study has been that while the stock issues that are traditionally used
in analysing persuasive discourse (Nadeau, 1958) are convenient and well-established labels
for certain steps and sub-steps, in reality they display a larger range of variation, both in
terms of their order and in terms of their embeddedness, than it would otherwise be assumed
based on the handbooks and manuals that have been published on academic debates (Freeley
& Steinberg, 2005; Meany & Shuster, 2002; Rybacki & Rybacki, 2000; Ziegelmueller &
Kay, 1997). This finding lends further support to genre theories, which postulate that expert
members of discourse communities tend to bend the generic rules to their benefit.
As Corbin and Strauss (2008) argue, apart from the scientific aspects of quality in
qualitative research (viz., credibility and trustworthiness), the creative aspects, that is,
originality and usefulness are also important. The research findings may be argued to be
novel with respect to and contribute to the development of three (sub-)fields: (a)
argumentation studies, (b) the theory of genre analysis, and (c) the methodology of genre
analysis. These three contributions will be detailed in the following.
Firstly, the findings are important for the field of argumentation studies. On the one
hand, the work that has been published on academic debates has focused mostly on best
practices, empirical studies on aspects other than argumentation, and theoretical research
(Klumpp, 1990). Best practices articles have been criticized on grounds that they lack
academic rigour (Porter, 1990), the empirical studies conducted have mostly ignored the
argumentation component of academic debates (Herbeck, 1990), and the theoretical studies
13
lack empirical grounding. On the other hand, despite the potential for linking argumentation
and linguistic research (van Rees, 2007) linguistic analyses of argumentation have mostly
focused on written argumentation, and despite its significance in tertiary education, linguistic
analyses of spoken argumentation have been largely neglected. Therefore, by carrying out a
study (a) that is located on the border between argumentation and linguistics, (b) that is based
on an empirical investigation, and (c) that is conducted with scientific rigour serves as an
important contribution to the field of argumentation.
Secondly, the results of the research bear special importance for the field of genre
analysis. Firstly, there is an apparent lack of studies that have investigated genres, in general,
and spoken genres, more specifically. Although there has been an increased research interest
in the description of genres, there is still an apparent research niche for the description of
spoken genres (Biber & Barbieri, 2007; Limberg, 2007; Zareva, 2011). Secondly, the
majority of the studies that have been conducted on a spoken genre have remained in the
textual space (Bhatia, 2004); therefore, there is a need for studies that are conducted in the
socio-cognitive space (Bhatia, 2004), preferably, taking the context of the genre into account
(Bhatia, 2008). Thirdly, in contrast with other spoken academic genres, such as academic
lectures (Camiciottoli, 2004), classroom talk (Csomay, 2006), or conference talks (Wulff,
Swales, & Keller, 2009), academic debate has been a neglected subject of study. Therefore,
owing to the fact that (a) it has analysed a spoken genre (b) within the socio-cognitive space,
with a focus on context, (c) especially because this given genre had not been previously been
subject to genre analysis, the study has made an important contribution to the field.
Thirdly, the study contributes to the methodology of genre analysis. While
ethnographic methods have traditionally been employed in genre research (Bhatia, 1993,
2004), the grounded theory method has not previously been used to investigate generic
features, yet Bhatia (2004) explicitly calls for “thicker descriptions of language use …, where
14
an attempt is made to offer a grounded description of language use” (p. 80). The utility of the
grounded theory method for genre analysis is especially apparent as it (a) emphasises the
larger context and (b) the process of action (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The study is not without limitations, however. Ideally, interview data should have
been collected from the debaters who delivered the given speeches at the WUDC in the
recordings, which would have enabled comparisons of beliefs with actual practice.
Unfortunately, due to issues of access this was not feasible. Therefore, the beliefs that are
reported by the participants of the interview study may or may not manifest in actual
performance; conversely, if the interviewees were asked to deliver an opening speech, they
would unconsciously employ other steps, in addition to the ones they reported on, in arguing
for the motion.
More importantly, however, Due to the small sample size, both for the speeches and
for the interviewees, the results are necessarily not generalizable either over the whole
population of speeches or over the whole population of debaters. On the other hand, due to
the inductive and qualitative nature of the investigation, generalizability is not to be expected
(Davies, 1992). Although the theory on the structure of Prime Minister speeches is grounded
in both interview and corpus data, it is to be further tested empirically on larger corpora of
actual performances.
Apart from further empirical testing on larger populations, the rhetorical structure
outlined above may also be utilized in contrastive investigations. As it was argued previously,
contrastive rhetoric has its origins in the British ESP school (Paltridge, 1997); therefore, the
grounded theory established based on the present study seems especially suitable for the
investigation of how debaters from other cultural backgrounds structure their speeches or
whether international competitions in debate have a unifying influence over the speech
structure.
15
References
Aguilar, M. (2004). The peer seminar, a spoken research process genre. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 3, 55-72. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00043-2
Allen, M., & Dowdy, L. (1984). An analysis of CEDA and NDT judging philosophies. CEDA
Yearbook, 5, 74-79.
Amsden, B. S. (2003). The evolution of Parliamentary Debate: A content analysis of NPDA
judging philosophies 1999-2002. Parliamentary Debate, 9(1), 92-100.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London:
Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bhatia, V. K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew & R. H.
Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 166-177). Abingdon, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers.
English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
Birkholt, M. J., & Diers, A. R. (2004). Judging philosophy: Reflected in the communication
of judges' decisions in Lincoln-Douglas debate. National Forensic Journal, 22(2), 1-
22.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some
insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 3, 39-54.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27).
Harlow: Longman.
16
Charmaz, K. (2007). Discursive glossary of terms. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 603-612). London: Sage.
Cirlin, A. (2002). The future of forensics: Some international options. In J. E. Rogers (Ed.),
Transforming debate: The best of the International Journal of Forensics (pp. 71-102).
New York: International Debate Education Association.
Combs, S. C. (2004). Challenging Greco-Roman argumentation trajectories: Argument norms
and cultural traditions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41, 55-57.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Crossley, S. (2007). A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: An exploratory study. English
for Specific Purposes, 26, 4-24.
Croucher, S. (2006). Special issue editor's introduction: Communication theory and
intercollegiate forensics--Addressing the research void within forensics. National
Forensic Journal, 24(2), 1-6.
Csomay, E. (2005). Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based
perspective. Linguistics and Education, 15, 243-274. doi:
10.1016/j.linged.2005.03.001
Csomay, E. (2006). Academic talk in American university classrooms: Crossing the
boundaries of oral-literate discourse? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5,
117-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.02.001
Davies, K. A. (1992). Validity and reliability in qualitative research on second language
acquisition and teaching: Another researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 605-
608.
17
Dean, K. W. (1990). Encouraging forensic pedagogy. National Forensic Journal, 8, 29-36.
Driscoll, W., & Zompetti, J. P. (2003). Discovering the world through debate (2nd ed.). New
York: International Debate Education Association.
Edwards, M. J., McMasters, K. M., Acland, R. D., Papp, K. K., & Garrison, R. N. (1997).
Oral presentations for surgical meetings. Journal of Surgical Research, 68, 87-90.
Faigley, L., & Hansen, K. (1985). Learning to write in the social sciences. College
Composition and Communication, 36(2), 140-149.
Farrow, S. (2006). Debating and its discontents. Language & Communication, 26, 117-128.
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric. London, United
Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
Freeley, A. J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2005). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for
reasoned decision making (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gordley, J. (2003). In search of a rulebook: A content analysis of academic debate judging
philosophies. The McNair Scholars Journal, 4, 19-36.
Gring, M. A. (2006). Epistemic and pedagogical assumptions for informative and persuasive
speaking practices: Disinterring the dichotomy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 43, 41-
50.
Herbeck, D. (1990). Debate scholarship: A needs assessment. National Forensic Journal, 8,
1-15.
Hyon, S. (2001). Long-term effects of genre-based instruction: A follow-up study of an EAP
reading course. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 417-438.
Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of
English. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1928-1942.
18
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate
students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25,
479-489.
Klumpp, J. F. (1990). Wading into the stream of forensics research: The view from the
editorial office. National Forensic Journal, 8, 77-86.
Lee, J. J. (2009). Size matters: An exploratory comparison of small- and large-class
university lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 42-57.
Limberg, H. (2007). Discourse structure of academic talk in university office hour
interactions. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 176–193.
McGee, B. R., Bartanen, M., Berube, D. M., Herbeck, D. A., Katsulas, J. P., & Collier, L. M.
(2002). Whatever happened to "value debate"?: Reflections on non-policy debating in
CEDA. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 23, 72-100.
Meany, J., & Shuster, K. (2002). Art, argument and advocacy: Mastering parliamentary
debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.
Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for
Specific Purposes, 23, 325-338.
Morita, N. (2002). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL
graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279-310.
Morris, K. (2005). Evaluator vs. critic: Judging intercollegiate forensics. National Forensic
Journal, 23(1), 75-78.
Nadeau, R. (1958). Hermogenes on "stock issues" in deliberative speaking. Speech
Monographs, 25, 59-66.
Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Popper, K. R. (1945). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.
19
Porter, S. (1990). Forensics research: A call for action. National Forensic Journal, 8, 95-103.
Recski, L. (2005). Interpersonal engagement in academic spoken discourse: A functional
account of dissertation defenses. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 5-23.
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005). The rhetoric of conference presentation
introductions: Context, argument and interaction. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15(1), 45-70.
Rybacki, K. C., & Rybacki, D. J. (2000). Advocacy and opposition: An introduction to
argumentation. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Tamási, J. G. (2008a). Preparing students for the “For and against” task of the Matura
examination. Paper presented at the meeting of the Fővárosi Pedagógiai és
Pályaválasztási Tanácsadó Intézet, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamási, J. G. (2008b). Stock issues in the first proposition speeches at the World Universities
Debating Championship and a Hungarian university debate club: A comparison.
Paper presented at the State of English Conference, Budapest, Hungary.
Thompson, S. E. (1994). Frameworks and contexts: A genre-based approach to analysing
lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 171-186.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of
organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 5-20.
van Rees, M. A. (2007). Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television
talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1454-1463.
Webber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for
Specific Purposes, 24, 157-181.
20
Wood, R. V., & Goodnight, L. (1995). Strategic debate (5th ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Wulff, S., Swales, J. M., & Keller, K. (2009). "We have about seven minutes for questions":
The discussion sessions from a specialized conference. English for Specific Purposes,
28, 79-92.
Zareva, A. (2011). ‘And so that was it’: Linking adverbials in student academic presentations.
RELC Journal, 42(1), 5-15.
Ziegelmueller, G. W., & Kay, J. (1997). Argumentation: Inquiry & advocacy (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
21
Appendix 1. The rhetorical structure of Prime Minister speeches
Move 1. Setting the scene
This move type serves the general function of opening the debate and the speech. It is realized through one or more of the following steps:
• Step 1. Attracting the audience’s attention
In this step, the debater attracts the audience’s attention, either by thanking the speaker for acknowledging them or by surprising them, referring to their credentials, etc.
Example: Ladies and gentlemen, it is somewhat ironic to stand before you in an all-male debate on an issue that is commonly seen as a concern to women only. [Debate07]
• Step 2. Pointing out the harm
In this step, the debater argues that a problem exists within the status quo, which absent a significant change in policy action is likely to continue.
Example: Robert Mugabe has systematically oppressed the people of Zimbabwe for a decade. [Debate10]
• Step 3. Pointing out the significance of the harm
In this step, the debater argues that the problem identified is either qualitatively or quantitatively significant.
Example: Right now 9 million people and increasing every day are living below the poverty line. [Debate10]
• Step 4. Offering interpretation to the motion
In this step, the debater presents the policy plan they wish to advocate during the course of the debate and any additional definitions that they deem necessary.
Example: As a consequence, what we are going to say is that normatively, democratic states should not limit the content that the media show. [Debate03]
• Step 5. Establishing framework for debate
In this step, the debater introduces the decision-making criteria into the debate by pointing out either the most important value that the Government upholds or a set of issues that they feel the debate should address.
Example: At Monash, we will prove two key things to you: firstly, that nationalism and the nation state have more benefits than harms, and secondly, we are going to show you that nationalism is superior to alternative conceptions of collective identity, such as class, such as religion, such as sexuality, if that does exist. [Debate01]
• Step 6. Previewing arguments
In this step, the debater provides a preview of the arguments that will be presented by the Prime Minister and, potentially, by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Example: As a consequence, I have three constructive arguments. … First, … Secondly, … third, … [Debate03]
22
Move 2. Justifying the plan
This move type serves the general function of providing justification for the plan, through a number of different arguments. It is realized through one or more of the following steps:
• Step 1. Providing constructive arguments
In this step, the debater provides justification for the motion, without reference to attacks that may be raised against their case. As such, this justification will be realized through the combination of harm, inherency, solvency, advantage, and theoretical justification sub-steps.
Example: We believe the mental harm is also significant. Because we believe that the harm and the trauma of women knowing that they have taken the life of a child that they have carried within themselves is one they are ill equipped to deal with later on. We believe people move towards choosing abortion because it seems like the easy option, it seems like the cleanest option, it seems like the best way to put an end to a messy incident they got involved with and that is why the pressure is on you to choose that abortion as long as it is an option. But we think that the harms and the long-term trauma that come from that is something you cannot understand at the time because you have not taken a life until you have done it. [Debate07]
• Step 2. Refuting a possible attack on the Government case
In this step, the debater provides justification for the motion through responding to an attack that may be raised against their case. As such, this step usually comprises (a) a potential negative attack on the case and (b) a response to the attack.
Example: Third, however, we do not think that it will hamper our ability to fight combats in the future first up because countries would actually have to get more international support before they go into conflicts because their citizens do not want them to go into conflict. Necessarily, we think, this leads to a just and better conflict. [Debate03]
Move 3. Closing the scene
This move type serves the general function of closing the speech. It is realized through one or more of the following steps:
• Step 1. Highlighting the most important aspects of the case
In this step, the debater provides a summary of the most important issues that they have previously mentioned in Move 2.
Example: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the solution that can work because the armed conflict will be over quickly, we have a clear opposition, and post-development will happen in an effective way. More than that, it is something that we have to do, for the people of Zimbabwe and the people of Africa. [Debate10]
• Step 2. Restating the motion
In this step, the debater either implicitly or explicitly restates the motion in front of the house. Most often, an implicit restatement is used.
Example: For all these reasons, we are very proud to propose. [Debate03]