An Analysis of the Persuasive Strength of Arguments in Procedural Texts

Argumentation (e.g. (Amgoud et al 2001, Moeschler 1985)) and, in particular, persuasive argumentation is a process frequently encountered in several types of exts where the challenge is to convince the reader to adhere to a certain point of view. Arguments come with forms of emphasis which give them more strength than normally expected, or, conversely, they may come with forms of irony or of depreciation, which influence the reader’s perception of the facts associated with the arguments. Persuation appears in different types of texts with similar objectives but with slightly different linguistic forms. This is, for example, the case in legal text analysis (Moens et alii., 2007). The situation of procedural texts, although ranging over a large set domains, seems to be simpler in terms of linguistic forms and underlying interpretation(s). One of the reasons is that procedural texts are basically action-oriented, and, therefore, the number of inferences that the user may have to do is limited as much as possible. Nevertheless, there are crucial problems associated with argumentation and persuation which are typical of procedural texts: arguments, in particular warnings, implicitly indicate that some actions are difficult to realize, and that there is a risk of failure (Dautriche et al. 2009). In terms of Action Theory, this is an interesting way to measure the complexity of a procedure and the chances to succeed, or the risks to fail. The challenge in procedural texts is to convince the reader that the procedure which is proposed for reaching a certain goal (concrete as in do-it yourself texts, or more abstract as in social relation texts) is among the bests, that the user gets some help, hints and advices while following the procedure and that results are guaranteed, modulo some precautions (e.g. caring about warnings, reading and considering advices, carefully realizing instructions in the order they are given, etc.). It is a way of ’selling’ the procedure, in comparison with other procedures describing the same task (since the web abounds in procedures, often quite different in form and contents, for realizing a certain task). A second type of underlying objective is to make sure that the reader, when realizing the procedure, will effectively strictly and fully realize the instructions as they are given, while indicating him that otherwise he may undergo problems. In procedural texts, this is essentially realized by means of advices and warnings. It seems that these tow forms of argumentation in procedural texts follow a small number of quite standard schemas (Walton et ali., 2008). Finally, a third register in persuation, positively oriented, consists in supporting the reader when the task is complex, long or risky. In conjunction with arguments, procedural texts abound in persuasive forms of various kinds. These forms are made visible via by a variety of marks, essentially linguistic, but also typographic, iconic or even possibly by means of images. At a global level, the presence of a number of advices and warnings in a text, is, by itself a form of persuation based on an implicit perception by the user that the text has received an in-depth elaboration and results from a long experience. Besides persuasive arguments, we observed a variety of explanation forms which have a certain implicit persuasive impact, such as reformulations, hints, definitions, etc. Besides persuation, at a theoretical level, it is of much interest to define a formal model of procedurality in terms of Action Theory (Dautriche et al. 2009). Within procedures, a number of persuasive forms also introduce some form of comfort for the user, so that he can work safely and without too much stress and worries.