“Change is coming, whether you like it or not!”
A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Greta Thunberg’s Argumentative Style
Katherina Sofia Kintcheva
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DEGREE IN
LINGUISTICS MASTER OF ARTS
Supervisor: Dr. Francisca Jungslager Second reader: Dr. Henrike Jansen S1654160
Word count: 14 168 28 August 2020 Leiden University
Abstract
This thesis provides a characterization of the argumentative style of climate activist Greta Thunberg, based on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Following an introduction on Thunberg and the current climate crisis, the newest notion within the framework, namely argumentative style, is discussed. The arguer’s strategic maneuvering is taken as a basis for the analysis, great importance is also ascribed to the communicative activity type, the context in which the discourse takes place. A paragraph-by-paragraph analysis results in Greta Thunberg’s style being characterized as engaged, with personal and accusing themes. The results are discussed in critical light of the still developing notion of argumentative style within pragma-dialectics, and avenues for further research are explored.
Keywords: argumentative style; communicative activity type; Greta Thunberg; political
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my parents for their unconditional support throughout my degree. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Francisca Jungslager, for her persistent encouragement during the writing process, as well as her guidance and understanding. It is thanks to her that I managed to keep my motivation, even during the strange and uncertain times of a global pandemic. Lastly, I am incredibly grateful for the love and support I have received from my nearest and dearest – Max, Yannik, and Dan.
1 INTRODUCTION --- 1
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK --- 4
2.1THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION --- 4
2.2THE IDEAL MODEL OF A CRITICAL DISCUSSION --- 5
2.3RULES FOR A CRITICAL DISCUSSION OR ‘TEN COMMANDMENTS’ --- 6
2.4ANALYTICAL OVERVIEW --- 7
2.5STRATEGIC MANEUVERING --- 8
2.6COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITY TYPES --- 10
2.7ARGUMENTATIVE STYLE --- 11
3 METHODOLOGY --- 15
3.1ANALYTICAL OVERVIEW --- 15
3.2COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITY TYPE --- 15
3.3STRATEGIC MANEUVERING: MAINTAINING A DELICATE BALANCE --- 16
3.4ARGUMENTATIVE STYLE – BASED ON STRATEGIC MANEUVERING --- 17
3.5CORPUS DATA --- 18
4 ANALYSIS--- 20
4.1RECONSTRUCTION OF ARGUMENTATION STRUCTURE (ANALYTICAL OVERVIEW) --- 20
4.2DISCUSSION STAGES --- 22
4.3PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS --- 23
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION --- 32
5.1RESULTS --- 32
5.1.2ACCUSING THEME --- 34 5.2DISCUSSION --- 35 5.3CONCLUSION --- 38 REFERENCES --- 39 APPENDIX A --- 42 APPENDIX B --- 45 APPENDIX C --- 47
1 Introduction
Climate change may be the biggest threat humanity and planet earth face in the 21st century. In
recent years, public discourse and media attention around the topic have increased significantly. The climate crisis, as it is also referred to, has taken center stage on the political agenda globally, as more and more nations and individuals aim to understand, change, and ultimately minimize their ecological impact (Vaughan 2019). Environmental pollution caused by humans and industries has already reached disastrous proportions, daily news coverage informs of yet another wildfire, oil spill, or species close to extinction (Calma 2019). As the effects of climate change become increasingly noticeable, so does the lack of sufficient action on the part of many governments and corporations (Levermann 2019). As a result, people take to the streets worldwide to demand change. A rise in youth activism has be observed, as children and teenagers plead to older generations to take action beyond mere discussions (Nevett 2019). This trend can, at least partially, be attributed to the Fridays for Future movement.
On the forefront of this movement is Greta Thunberg, a Swedish teenager and climate activist, who began protesting in front of the Swedish parliament with a sign that read Skolstrejk
för klimatet, “School strike for the climate”. Her persistence and determination to strike every
Friday soon gained media attention, and over the course of mere months inspired millions of students around the globe to join the movement (Carrington 2019). As the movement grew, Thunberg began receiving invitations to speak at significant climate-centered events, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Economic Forum in Davos, and the United Nations Climate Action Summit. The young activist has delivered speeches to hundreds of political leaders, which were followed by millions more through various types of media (Fridays for Future 2020).
Thunberg’s very blunt and honest speech style, her accusations of inaction against politicians, and her call for radical action in face of the climate crisis have gained her recognition and sparked discussion (Knight 2019). Greta Thunberg’s speeches have played a significant part in putting both her name on the agenda, and bringing the conversation on climate change into the mainstream. Her argumentative style and powerful speeches differ
from ordinary political speeches in many ways, providing an interesting opportunity for scientific research.
In order to characterize Thunberg’s argumentative style, I will employ the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, as developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 2004). An examination of Greta’s argumentative style through this theoretical lens is appropriate, precisely because argumentative style is the newest notion to be developed in the framework. The framework’s primary theoretical tool of strategic maneuvering will provide the basis for my analysis. Strategic maneuvering describes the arguer’s aim to keep the balance between rhetorical effectiveness and dialectical reasonableness, and is inherent to every argumentative move. On the basis of the three inseparable aspects of adaptation to audience demand, topical choices and presentational devices, the ultimate goal of this thesis is to answer the question: How can Greta Thunberg’s argumentative style be characterized on the basis of
the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation?
The newest notion within the theory, argumentative style has not yet been studied extensively. A small number of works by van Eemeren (2018, 2019) have been published on the matter. The approaches and analytical processes outlined in these papers are of primarily theoretical nature thus far, however their application to argumentative discourse is still in its early stages. With this thesis I aim to contribute to the development of applying the theoretical notion of argumentative style within the pragma-dialectical framework to real-life argumentation.
As the subject is contemporary, and still ongoing, little academic analysis has been conducted on the topic of Thunberg’s argumentative style. This is a matter well worth studying, due to the mass media attention, influence on public policy, and the so-called ‘Greta effect’, inspiring young people around the globe to protest in their local communities (Nevett 2019). This thesis will center around the analysis of the speech which Thunberg delivered at the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (COP24) in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland (transcript in Appendix B). As the first speech Greta delivered to an audience of politicians from all over the world, and due to her being relatively unknown at the time, this speech makes for a compelling case study. Untainted by expectations imposed on her by previous speeches, Greta’s appearance at COP24 can be taken as a starting point for her argumentative style.
The following chapter 2 (Theoretical framework) provides an extensive overview of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, including the crucial concepts and the analytical process. In chapter 3 (Methodology) I lay out the methodology employed, considering the context in which the argumentation takes place. The analysis in paragraph-by-paragraph style is to be found in chapter 4 (Analysis), following a reconstruction of the speech’s argumentation structure. Thereafter, a characterization of Thunberg’s argumentative style is provided in chapter 5, as well as a discussion on its place within pragma-dialectics. Additionally, certain limitations of the notion of argumentative style are explored from a critical perspective, followed by concluding remarks and suggestions for further research.
2 Theoretical Framework
This chapter provides an explanation of the theoretical framework employed in this thesis. The very basics of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation are laid out in section 2.1 up until and including 2.3. Thereafter, the process of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse is laid out, beginning with the analytic overview (section 2.4). Sections 2.5 and 2.6 feature descriptions of the primary theoretical tool of pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, and the communicative activity type, respectively. Finally, the newest notion of pragma- dialectics and main focus of this thesis, argumentative style, is discussed in section 2.7. 2.1 The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation
In the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, first developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 2004), argumentation is regarded as both a process and an outcome. The main goal of argumentation in pragma-dialectics is to resolve a difference of opinion on the merits through the process of a critical discussion. The outcome is evaluated based on the reasonableness of the standpoint put forth (van Eemeren 2015).
The standard pragma-dialectical theory features an ideal model of a critical discussion, which serves as a basis for a reconstruction of argumentative discourse. This reconstruction, in turn, is essential for analyzing and evaluating the argumentative discourse at hand. The model is a theoretically motivated system for resolution-oriented discourse, which combines pragmatic and dialectical insights of four methodological principles – functionalization, socialization, externalization and dialectification. Functionalization refers to the specification of identity and correctness conditions of the series of speech acts at hand, as well as clearly setting the boundaries of the “disagreement space”. Argumentative communication is a process, socialization describes speech acts at the level of interaction in the context of joint problem solving, i.e. resolving the difference of opinion on the merits. This principle further encompasses the identification of the roles of protagonist and antagonist. Externalization is the principle of focusing on the external commitments arguers actually have created when performing speech acts in argumentative action, rather than making assumptions about the arguer’s beliefs or dispositions. Lastly, the dialectification principle aims to extend the scope beyond a merely descriptive approach to viewing argumentative discourse as the dialectical procedure, exchange of speech acts between arguers, that it is (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 152–6).
2.2 The ideal model of a critical discussion
The requirement for a critical discussion is firstly that there must be a difference of opinion between a protagonist and an antagonist. Such a difference can take the form of one party putting forth a standpoint and the other party doubting its acceptability or disagreeing with it. The second party can also put forth an opposing standpoint all together. In order to conduct a critical discussion, the parties must want to attempt to reach an agreement regarding the acceptability of the standpoint at issue.
There are four stages which the argumentative discourse must pass through – though in real-life situations one or more of the stages may remain implicit, or occur in a different order. As per the ideal model, the first stage is the “confrontation stage”, during which the difference of opinion is expressed, and the opposition between a standpoint and the non-acceptance of said standpoint is established, paving the way for the discussion. Thereafter, arguers establish the formal and material starting points of the discussion in the “opening stage”. This includes, among other elements, an agreement as to the roles of protagonist and antagonist. While the protagonist has the obligation to defend their standpoint, the antagonist can choose to simply put forth doubt in the standpoint’s acceptability. Only in the case of the antagonist putting forth an opposing standpoint, are they obliged to critically respond to the protagonist’s standpoint. The third, “argumentation stage”, features the advancement of argumentation of the protagonist and the antagonist (if applicable), as well as responses to criticism from the respective opponent. It is during this stage that the protagonist must fulfill their obligation to defend the standpoint methodically. Any party which advances a standpoint further has the obligation to defend criticisms against it. The antagonist may elicit further argumentation from the protagonist, should they not be fully – or even partially – convinced. Lastly, in the “concluding stage” the outcome of the discussion is determined, the parties need to reach an agreement about the acceptability of the protagonist’s standpoint. The ideal outcome is a resolution of the difference of opinion, either in favor of the protagonist’s standpoint – it was successfully defended against criticisms – or the antagonist’s disagreement of the standpoint – it could not withstand the criticisms.
A settling of differences does not equal a resolution, rather the difference of opinion is brought to a halt or an end. Should this be the outcome, the critical discussion is not considered to have been successful (van Eemeren 2015, van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 156–7).
2.3 Rules for a critical discussion or ‘Ten Commandments’
So as to assure that arguers remain reasonable, van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) developed a set of rules for a critical discussion, which are to be regarded as a code of conduct, alongside the ideal model. It is necessary that arguers comply with these rules in all four stages of the discussion to resolve their difference of opinion, as it is ultimately on the basis of these rules that an arguer’s reasonableness is assessed. Violations of the rules are seen as hindering the resolve and are considered to be fallacious (van Eemeren 2015, pp. 129-131). These rules are to be followed in order to ‘play the game effectively’ and judged on their ability to serve their purpose, i.e. their problem-validity. For the rules to further be of practical significance, it is necessary that arguers are willing to accept them and adhere to them, thereby rendering them conventionally valid too. As the rules have been formulated with the goal of resolving a difference of opinion in mind, they can be expected to be deemed acceptable to arguers who share this view (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004, p. 187–8). These rules as part of the procedure for conducting a critical discussion, however, are considered to be too technical for use in ordinary argumentative practice. Therefore, van Eemeren and Grootendorst further developed a simpler code of conduct for a critical discussion, consisting of ten basic requirements and referred to as the Ten Commandments. These commandments have are centered around prohibited moves which hinder the resolution of a difference of opinion. In contrast, the rules for a critical discussion are listed as features to be taken into account, thus serving a prescriptive function, while the commandments serve a restrictive one. The code of conduct or ‘Ten Commandments’, as outlined by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004, pp. 190–6), can be found in full in Appendix A. Below is a brief summary, with an outline of the central points and two examples.
Rules 1 through 5 (freedom, obligation-to-defend, standpoint, relevance, and unexpressed-premise rule) have the common focus of outlining how the discussion participants should conduct the critical discussion in order to optimize the conditions for resolving the difference of opinion on the merits. Rules 6 through 10 (starting-point, validity, argument scheme, concluding, and general language use rule), on the other hand, concern the evaluation of argumentation and the closing of the discussion.
For example, the third rule is a measure which ensures that critical attacks and ensuing defenses are strictly related to standpoints which have actually been put forth by the protagonist. The Standpoint Rule therefore prevents a distortion of a standpoint by the protagonist or the antagonist: Attacks on standpoints may not bear on a standpoint that has not
actually been put forward by the other party. A violation of this rule can manifest as an
attribution of a fictitious standpoint to the opposing party, such as wrongly presenting one’s own standpoint as the opponent’s, thereby committing a fallacy of the straw man (van Eemeren 2018, p. 66).
Rule six is meant to ensure that starting points are used properly and correctly when standpoints are being attacked and defended. The common starting point must be known to both parties in order to reach a resolve of a difference of opinion. The Starting Point Rule prescribes that neither party may present an incorrect starting point, nor deny a correct one:
Discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted starting point or falsely deny that something is an accepted starting point. A violation of this rule manifests as meddling
with the agreed upon starting points by falsely denying or falsely presenting something as an accepted standpoint. The former results in a fallacy of falsely denying an accepted starting point, whereas the latter can lead to a fallacy of circular reasoning, among others (van Eemeren 2018, p. 67).
2.4 Analytical overview
The ideal model for a critical discussion was, most importantly, developed to serve as a point of reference when analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. A pragma-dialectical discourse analysis entails the interpretation of argumentation from the theoretical perspective of the model for a critical discussion.
First, the analyst needs to assess to what extent the discourse to be examined is in fact argumentative. This is only the case if the complex speech act of argumentation is performed. While the argumentative nature may be apparent at first glance, real life argumentation will rarely – if ever – fully adhere to the model of a critical discussion. Hence, the next step in the process of analysis is to reconstruct all elements which are relevant in bringing the discussion to a conclusion (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 159–60). Such an “analytic overview” of argumentative discourse is the point of departure for a critical evaluation and should therefore feature only elements which are relevant to the evaluation. Among those are the issues at stake in the difference of opinion, the parties’ procedural and material starting points, as well as both explicitly and implicitly advanced arguments by the parties. Furthermore, it is necessary to closely inspect the argumentation structure of complex arguments made in defense of the standpoint, together with the argument schemes of individual arguments which support it (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 160–1).
The evaluation of argumentative discourse aims to determine which speech acts aid in resolving the difference of opinion, by also outlining which moves hinder the process of a critical discussion. An analytical overview provides the starting point for evaluation. Any discussion moves which pose an infringement on any of the rules for critical discussion, performed by either party at any of the stages of discussion is considered as a threat to the goal of the discussion, the resolution of a difference of opinion, and therefore regarded as fallacious. The term ‘fallacy’ is thereby analytically connected to the rules for a critical discussion, defined as a discussion move violating a particular rule ascribed to a discussion stage in a certain manner (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 168–9).
2.5 Strategic maneuvering
While engaging in argumentative discourse, arguers are persistently facing the “argumentative predicament”, as the aiming for effectiveness goes hand in hand with maintaining reasonableness in every argumentative move made. In making any discussion move, the arguer wants to achieve the effect of acceptance by their audience while simultaneously remaining committed to maintaining reasonableness as per the rules for a critical discussion. Due to the inherent tension between these two objectives, “strategic maneuvering” is needed to keep the balance. The concept of strategic maneuvering was developed by van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) in order to bridge the separation between rhetorical and dialectical perspectives in argumentation theory, and enrich the framework for analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. The notion of strategic maneuvering is the primary theoretical tool of pragma-dialectics, and can provide beneficial rhetorical insight to the reconstruction and evaluation of argumentative discourse (van Eemeren 2015, pp. 134–6).
The development of strategic maneuvering was motivated by the goal of wanting to create a bridge between rhetorical and dialectical approaches, which had prior been strictly divided and regarded as incompatible. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser, however, believe them to be complementary and naturally occurring alongside each other in argumentative practice. Departing from the point of definitions, “dialectic” is described as a method of dealing with the interactive act of verbal communication, with the goal of moving from opinions to more descriptive and evaluative standpoints through a critical discussion. “Rhetoric”, on the other hand, is defined as the theoretical study of different types of persuasion techniques in argumentative practice, and the measure of their effectiveness. Based on these definitions, the ideological gap between two approaches can be bridged by the notion of strategic maneuvering,
as engagement in argumentative discourse entails – even requires – the simultaneous pursuit of critical reasonableness and artful effectiveness. The continuous efforts to reconcile rhetorical aims of effectiveness with maintaining dialectical standards of reasonableness have resulted in the fleshing out of the concept of strategic maneuvering (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015c, p. 384). Should an arguer neglect their commitment to reasonableness and violate one or more rule(s) in their pursuit of effectiveness, their strategic maneuvering “derails”, and they proceed to commit a fallacy.
Arguers have three inseparable aspects at their disposal – choices to be made from the “topical potential” available, audience-directed “framing” of argumentative moves, and the purposive use of linguistic “devices” to present these moves. While these aspects can be distinguished analytically, in practice they are intertwined and occur alongside each other – they are indeed inseparable. In more detail, the topical potential pertains to the most effective choice among potential issues for discussion, with the aim of creating the most advantageous starting point. Audience-directed framing, or adaptation to “audience demand”, means that discussion moves are framed to be optimally acceptable to the other party, while keeping in mind the opponent's personal preferences. Presentational devices encompass phrasing and other stylistic choices such as figures of speech, which are attuned to achieving the desired effect in the other party. A party engaged in argumentative discourse will achieve optimal “argumentative strategy” by consistently strategically maneuvering both “vertically” and “horizontally”. In this sense, vertical convergence refers to the mutual reinforcement of the three aspects described above – topical choices, audience demand and presentational devices. Horizontal convergence means that characteristics of the first strategic maneuver advanced by an arguer and those of the following maneuver reinforce each other (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2015c, pp. 385–6).
The reconstruction of argumentative discourse and its ensuing analysis can benefit from including the notion of strategic maneuvering in at least three ways, as described below. In my research I will closely inspect Thunberg’s strategic maneuvering, whereupon I will base my characterization of her argumentative style. Firstly, through examining the rhetorical aspects of the discourse, the analysis of maneuvers provides a clearer view and better grasp of argumentative reality. Secondly, a more thorough understanding of Greta's rationale behind specific discussion moves will provide me with a more profound analysis as well as a clearer ground for justification of her argumentative style. Thirdly, an insight into the speech’s strategic design will shed light on the various reasons for fallacious moves occurring in real-life argumentative discourse (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015b, p. 354).
2.6 Communicative activity types
In order to characterize Greta Thunberg’s argumentative style, the examination of the context in which the argumentative discourse occurs is vital. The determination of the communicative activity type is thus an important and very helpful analytical tool in my research. Unlike the theoretically-based model for a critical discussion, communicative activity types have an empirical basis and reflect real-life communicative and argumentative practices. Similarly, strategic maneuvering occurs in the multifaceted domains of communicative practices which have developed in argumentative reality. These domains and practices have been theoretically established in order to more accurately represent the requirements of argumentation in various domains – such as the legal, academic, and political domain (van Eemeren 2018, p.129). A cluster of communicative activity types, which is institutionalized in say, the political domain, will show a prevalence of a certain communicative activity genre – in this case deliberation. Within a certain domain, the communicative activity types will serve the respective communicative needs, and thereby constitute the institutionalized macro-context for argumentation in said domain (van Eemeren 2018, p.130). Further, activity types in the same domain will often have the same institutional point. The specific institutional point may differ, however, and is based on the communicative activity type’s raison d’être – its reason to exist. Continuing with the example of the (Western) political domain, all deliberative communicative activity types have the general institutional point of preserving a democratic political culture. Yet, the specific institutional points within this domain will differ from each other – a parliamentary debate has the institutional point of dissecting a government’s policies by elected representatives of the people. Meanwhile, a political interview’s specific institutional point is to hold politicians accountable, and make them explain and justify their positions on given topics (van Eemeren 2018, p.131). A political speech given at the largest international summit on the topic of climate change – specifically the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (henceforth COP24) – has the institutional point of bringing across the stance held by the individual (or organization in case of a spokesperson) on the topic of climate change.
In the domain of political communication, where the genre of deliberation is predominant, several communicative activity types will feature a listening, watching or reading third-party audience. This third-party audience can, in some cases, determine the outcome of a deliberation, such as by voting for the political contestant or party of their choice (van Eemeren 2018, p.134). Due to the domain’s general institutional point of preserving a democratic
political culture, the communicative activity types are designed to provide optimal opportunity for argumentative exchange. By aiming to enable argumentation from both a dialectical and rhetorical perspective, strategic maneuvering is of crucial importance in these activity types. The previously mentioned third-party audience with decision-making power provide ample opportunity for contestants to maneuver strategically, first and foremost by adapting to more than one audience’s demand (van Eemeren 2018, p.135). In the case of Greta Thunberg’s speech at COP24, the factor of two audiences certainly shapes the opportunities for strategic maneuvering. As does the fact that neither audience is actively engaging in the discourse. Hence, there are two ‘mute’ audiences – on one hand the primary audience or ‘silent antagonist’, consisting of political leaders, and the secondary listening, watching and reading audience. All institutional preconditions or contextual restrictions – both general and specific – play an important role in the evaluation and analysis of argumentative reality, showing the importance of examining argumentation in context.
2.7 Argumentative style
As my main research interest lies in determining Greta’s argumentative style, I will make use of the most recent notion of interest in the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. A concept previously neglected in the analysis of argumentative discourse, the elusive notion of argumentative style is now a matter of interest and discussion. Various factors contribute to stylistic variation in the realm of argumentation – the medium used for expression, the degree of formality of the occasion, varying norms and contextual domains. In the spirit of the most prevalent aspects of pragma-dialectics, argumentative style too should be analyzed in terms of its instrumentality in relation to resolving a difference of opinion by aiming to convince the audience of a standpoint’s acceptability through the means of argumentative discourse. The (analytical) treatment of style should focus on its argumentative function, while being pragmatic in a linguistic sense and dialectical in a philosophical sense (van Eemeren 2019). Valuable rhetorical insights are to be gained from examining argumentative style in close relation with the theoretical tool of strategic maneuvering.
The manifestation of argumentative style in discourse can be examined on the basis of several factors – among those, I will focus on the argumentative moves made and the implementation of strategic consideration. Firstly, in regards to the argumentative moves made, those can manifest as part of different types of argument schemes in order to support a standpoint. These argument schemes are differentiated by their own set of critical questions.
Symptomatic argumentation prompts the question of whether the elements stated in the standpoint are indeed a sign or token of the elements present in the argumentation. Argumentation by comparison elicits the question of comparability between standpoint and argument, whereas causal argumentation questions whether the elements stated in the argumentation indeed lead to the advanced standpoint (van Eemeren 2019, pp.156–9).
The implementation of strategic consideration to realize both dialectical and rhetorical aim and to resolve a difference of opinion in one's favor encompasses the expectations that maneuvers support this goal. Strategic maneuvers can be implemented both in a vertical manner – to include all three aspects of individual maneuvers, as well as in a horizontal manner – the succession of maneuvers in the argumentative discourse.
If the maneuvers are coherently aimed at the same goal, they can be considered as an “argumentative strategy”. Some argumentation strategies are particular to a certain discussion stage, while others are considered as “general”, as they appear throughout the discourse; those are also known as “discussion strategies”. The “strategic design” of argumentative discourse thus consists of the argumentative moves made, as well as the strategic considerations implemented. By examining the strategic design of argumentative discourse, it is possible to detect the “strategic plan” which motivates all of the design's components. This strategic plan explains the strategic design and therefore constitutes the “strategic scenario”. An argumentative style is instrumental in realizing a strategic scenario (van Eemeren 2019, pp.161–3). In my analysis I will examine the argumentative moves and inherent strategic maneuvers made by Thunberg. Further, I will determine the aspects of strategic design, strategic plan, and strategic scenario, which are intertwined with the argumentative style, throughout the evaluation of the discourse.
For the purpose of describing argumentative style, rather than just a linguistically motivated stylistic notion, style needs to be defined in both a more specific and broad way. A more specific definition is needed, with a focus on the way of conducting argumentative discourse to achieve the goal of resolving a difference of opinion. A broader definition of the concept should encompass more factors than just the verbal presentation of discourse. The three aspects of strategic maneuvering as part of an argumentative style can characterize a certain style as shaping these three dimensions in a particular way. Certain preconditions need to be met in order to speak of a fully-fledged argumentative style. First and foremost, an arguer can be held responsible for their choices concerning argumentative style. These choices must pertain to all three aspects of strategic maneuvering. Further, the choices of argumentative moves must be intrinsically related to the goals aimed to achieve by the discourse – namely the
resolution of a difference of opinion by way of argumentation. Choices are additionally strategic by potentially contributing to the balance between reasonableness and effectiveness, as per strategic maneuvering. Moreover, they result in being systematic as they are consistently similarly shaped, and lastly these choices are made throughout a substantial part of the discourse (van Eemeren 2019, pp.163–5). I will analyze Thunberg’s choices in terms of her strategic maneuvers, and their consistency throughout the speech. The strategic plan of the arguer will be identified based on how it manifests in the aspects of adaptation to audience demand, topical choices, and presentational devices.
Argumentative style shapes the topical choices in argumentative moves, argumentative moves in turn are adapted to audience demand, and choices regarding presentational devices are brought forth in the form of argumentative moves. Therefore, the identification of style should always start from a reconstruction of the analytic overview, argumentative patterns and strategic design. Although the use of argumentative style may be limited to a certain part of the discourse, in most cases it will be used throughout. If the same style is found to have been used systematically, the next step is to check if it has also been applied throughout in argumentative moves and ensuing patterns - where basic patterns featuring the main argumentation in support of the standpoint are most important. Once found in the argumentative patterns, considerations which determine strategic design are to be examined. Only if the identified style is in agreement with the strategic scenario, it can be concluded that the presumed argumentative style has indeed been utilized (van Eemeren 2019, p. 168).
The process as described above is the theoretical foundation for my research. In my application of the theory I will begin with a reconstruction of the analytical overview, as above. However, due to the novelty of the notion and the fact that research in this realm is in its early days, the concepts described by van Eemeren are not yet clearly defined, and have yet to be applied in analyses. Therefore, I aim to contribute to the development of argumentative style through an approach centered around strategic maneuvering. The specific proceedings are described in the chapter on methodology.
To date, there is no classification or inventory of argumentative styles developed. Some suggestions by van Eemeren include “polarizing”, “reconciliatory”, “detached”, and “engaged”. Setting up such a classification is not an easy matter, as labels should simultaneously be specific, remain objective and descriptive, without being too restrictive. In my research I will proceed to characterize Thunberg’s argumentative style after having examined the strategic maneuvering at play. In this manner, I aim to identify recurring characteristics present throughout the speech, and reflected in all three aspects of her strategic
maneuvers. The most commonly recurring themes will ultimately be chosen as descriptions for the argumentative style.
3 Methodology
For the purpose of analyzing Greta Thunberg’s argumentative style, I will make use of the theoretical tools developed within the pragma-dialectical framework of argumentation, which were described in the previous chapter. This chapter will outline the methods used for the analytical process, including the starting point of the analytical overview (section 3.1) and the context in which the argumentation takes place, i.e. the communicative activity type (section 3.2). Further, I describe how I plan to analyze Thunberg’s strategic maneuvering (section 3.3), as well as her argumentative style, based on her strategic maneuvering (section 3.4). Lastly, section 3.5 features an explanation of the corpus data, Thunberg’s speech given at COP24. 3.1 Analytical overview
The starting point of my analysis will be to reconstruct all those, and only those, elements which can be considered relevant in solving the difference of opinion. This reconstruction will result in an analytical overview, that includes the issues at stake in the difference of opinion, Thunberg’s procedural and material starting points, as well as both explicitly and implicitly advanced arguments by the sole arguer. Yet, standpoints which are implicitly ascribed to the silent antagonist will be included, should they be relevant to the conclusion of the critical discussion. Lastly, the – in this case implicitly – claimed output of the discussion will be featured in the analytical overview too (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2015a, pp. 159–161). The resulting reconstruction of Thunberg’s argumentation is to be found in full in section 4.1, as well as in Appendix C.
3.2 Communicative activity type
The analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse in the context in which it occurs is beneficial, as it provides a more in-depth understanding of argumentative reality. Therefore, I will also examine Greta Thunberg’s speech through the lens of the given communicative activity type, institutional point, and ensuing institutional preconditions.
As previously mentioned (section 2.6), Thunberg’s political speech given at the largest international summit on the topic of climate change (COP24) falls under the genre of deliberation in the political domain. The setting in which it occurs, as well as its format of a speech, i.e. a monologue, have an effect on the institutional point of the discourse. Namely, to
bring across the stance held by the individual (or organization in case of a spokesperson) on the topic of climate change. Another distinguishing and crucial point of this communicative activity type is presence of two audiences – the primary audience or silent antagonist, consisting of political leaders, and the secondary listening, watching and reading audience. While the political domain as such is one which creates the opportunity for strategic maneuvering, the specific presence of two ‘mute’ audiences further encourages the use of strategic maneuvers. How the communicative activity type has shaped Greta’s strategic maneuvering to adapt to both audiences’ demands, her topical choices, as well as use of presentational devices will be a vital point of my analysis in the following chapter 4.
3.3 Strategic maneuvering: maintaining a delicate balance
The ensuing analysis will first and foremost be based on the primary theoretical tool of pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering is needed in order to maintain the delicate balance between remaining reasonable and pursuing effectiveness in one’s argumentation. Three inseparable aspects – presentational devices, audience demand, and topical choices will be examined separately, albeit occurring alongside each other in argumentative discourse (van Eemeren 2015, pp. 134–6). Below I outline how I will determine and analyze the three aspects.
In terms of presentational devices, I will examine the stylistic and pragmatic choices made in the phrasing of standpoints or argumentative moves in an attempt to render them maximally convincing. Presentational devices, even when appearing as ‘neutral’ statements, are always stylistically marked (van Eemeren 2010, p. 120). In my analysis, I will examine formal devices such as repetition and subordination, as well as informal devices or “tropes” such as metaphors. Beyond these elements, Thunberg’s pragmatic choices in a broader sense will be examined as presentational devices. For instance, Thunberg leaves the difference of opinion largely implicit in the beginning of her speech, and chooses to make explicit demands for actions only in the later part of the speech.
The next aspect of strategic maneuvering, adaptation to audience demand, or audience-directed framing, is defined as putting forth discussion moves in a manner which is deemed to be optimally acceptable to the opposing party, while being considerate of the opponent’s personal preferences. In the case of Thunberg’s speeches, adaptation to audience demand takes place towards two separate audiences. On one hand, there is the primary audience or silent antagonist, all listeners present at the conference at which she delivers the speech. On the other
hand, adaptation to the secondary audience’s demand is also at play. This audience consists of all listeners and readers who do not witness the speech first-hand, but watch or read about it, for instance in (online) media. This aspect may be regarded as the one most influenced by the communicative activity type – the secondary audience is often regarded as the real addressee in the domain of political argumentative discourse. This in turn has an influence on the ensuing institutional preconditions at hand. During the analysis, I will be inspecting both direct and indirect adaptations to Thunberg’s audiences. This includes the use of direct address such as ‘you’ and ‘us’, which cater to different audiences at different points during the speech. Further, various personal attacks, ad hominem fallacies against one of the audiences, will be laid out.
Lastly, topical choices pertain to picking the most effective issues for discussion from the pool of topical potential available as per the difference of opinion at hand. In other words, aiming to create the most advantageous starting point for oneself by way of selecting a fitting topic (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2015c, pp. 385–6). The pool of topical potential is to be found in the domain of climate action, politicians’ lack of action about the matter, and a pressing sense of urgency. I aim to examine topical choices in terms of the perspective or angle from which Thunberg selects her argumentative moves, such as speaking from personal experience or choosing to leave certain points, such as her own involvement in the Fridays for
Future movement, implicit. Overall, when it comes to topical selection, the focus will be on
the choice of reasonable and effective argument selection, such as ascribing standpoints to the silent antagonist or primary audience.
In some instances, the demarcation between the three aspects is a difficult task, as they so often occur alongside each other, often intertwined and inseparably connected. Thus, after examining the three aspects of strategic maneuvering and the immediate context of their occurrence individually, an examination of the interplay between them is in order. The examination of strategic maneuvering at play, in the context of the given communicative activity type, will provide the basis for the evaluation for Greta Thunberg’s argumentative style.
3.4 Argumentative style – based on strategic maneuvering
As my research interest lies in defining Thunberg’s argumentative style, I will make use of the newest notion of interest in pragma-dialects. When examined in close relation with the strategic maneuvering at play, further rhetorical insights of the discourse can be gained. Theoretical insight into the evaluation and determination of argumentative style is in its early
days, yet to be extensively discussed in the academic realm, and therefore still a developing notion. Therefore, the ensuing analysis will be based on the limited works by van Eemeren available to date, and thus contribute to the limited range of analyses of argumentative style (van Eemeren 2019).
In order to apply the theory-laden analytical process to argumentative reality, I will proceed as outlined in section 2.7, by focusing on the examination of the argumentative moves made and the implementation of strategic consideration, given the institutional preconditions of the communicative activity type. Further, I will determine the aspects of strategic design, strategic plan, and strategic scenario, which are intertwined with the argumentative style, throughout the evaluation of the discourse. My analysis will be based on the occurrence of and interplay between Thunberg’s strategic maneuvers. In most cases, presumably Thunberg’s included, the argumentative style will be present throughout the discourse, rather than only in certain parts.
As there is no classification of types of argumentative style, my description and definition of Thunberg’s style will ultimately be determined by the recurring characteristics of argumentative moves and strategic maneuvers present in her speech. The words which were ultimately chosen were those ever-present and best fitted to describe the arguer’s style in several aspects.
3.5 Corpus data
The speech to be analyzed will be the one Thunberg delivered at the 24th Conference of the
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24) in December 2018 in Katowice, Poland. Thunberg’s address at the plenary session of COP24 was her first speech to a large audience consisting of political world leaders. As such, this speech can be regarded as the starting point of the development of her argumentative style. By December 2018, the Fridays for Future movement had begun to spread internationally, gained popularity, and mobilized more than 17.000 students to strike for the climate (Fridays for
Future 2020). Media attention surrounding Thunberg had started increasing only shortly prior
to the speech, therefore it is unlikely that all delegates at the COP24 plenary session knew of Thunberg and the movement she had started.
This speech was the one to put Greta Thunberg’s name on the agenda, marking the beginning of her recognition as a climate activist, as well as increasing her popularity. For the same reasons, the pressure on her to use her rhetorical power to convince the audience would have
been even greater. To make the primary audience listen to young people and inspire a collective climate action mark some of the main points of the speech. While being known for school strikes among young people – the secondary audience – at this point, Greta’s directness towards world leaders made it clear to both audiences that she means what she says. Ultimately, I aim to outline how the institutional preconditions of such a political speech at a UN summit influence the three aspects of strategic maneuvering, and by extension Thunberg’s argumentative style.
A video recording of the speech at COP24 was obtained online, via YouTube. The transcript was provided alongside the video, and corrected for minor errors. Appendix B features a transcript of the speech at COP24.
4 Analysis
In this chapter, the theoretical tools laid out in chapter 2 and the processes explained in chapter 3 are applied to Greta Thunberg’s speech. First featured is the analytical overview (section 4.1), a detailed reconstruction of the argumentation structure found in Thunberg’s speech. Thereafter is an examination of the discussion stages (section 4.2) as found in the speech, compared to the ideal model of a critical discussion, and the order of stages featured therein. In section 4.3 I provide a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the speech, focusing on the strategic maneuvering taking place, and under consideration of the institutional preconditions imposed by the communicative activity type.
4.1 Reconstruction of argumentation structure (analytical overview) 1 Change is coming, whether you like it or not.
1.1 The real power belongs to the people.
1.1.1 You are never too small to make a difference
1.1.1.1 If a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to.
1.1.2 We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis.
1.1.2.1 We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and we need to focus on equity.
1.1.2.2 Until you start focusing on what needs to be done rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope.
(1.1.2’) (And you are not treating it as a crisis.)
1.1.2’.1 You only speak of green eternal economic growth. 1.1.2’.1.1 You are not mature enough to tell it as it is. 1.1.2’.1.1.1a You are too scared of being unpopular. 1.1.2’.1.1.1b But I don’t care about being popular.
1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1a I care about climate justice and the living planet. (1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’) (And that is what you should also care about.)
1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1a Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.
1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury.
1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b.1a It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.
(1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b.1b) (You benefit and enjoy luxury, while the majority of people suffer.)
1.1.2’.2 You don’t pull the emergency brake.
1.1.2’.2.1 You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess.
1.1.2’.3 My children will ask me why you didn’t act while there was still time to act.
1.1.2’.4 You say you love your children above all else, yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.
1.1.3 We have not come here to beg world leaders to care.
1.1.3.1a You have ignored us in the past and you will ignore us again. 1.1.3.1b We have run out of excuses and we have run out of time.
4.2 Discussion stages
The pragma-dialectical ideal model for a critical discussion features four discussion stages which the argumentation must pass through. However, in real life argumentative discourse these stages can be found in varying orders, with one or more stages remaining implicit. Greta Thunberg’s speech differs from the model in several ways, which I will outline below.
To begin with, as per the ideal model, the confrontation stage occurs first, in which the difference of opinion is expressed – the setting stone for a critical discussion. In the speech at hand, the confrontation stage is only to be found towards the very end of the discourse, beginning at “We have not come here to beg world leaders to care” (standpoint 1.1.3). The confrontation stage further coincides with the concluding stage, due to its occurrence at the end of the speech. According to the ideal model, it is during the concluding stage that the outcome of the discussion is determined. In Thunberg’s case, however, the intertwined confrontation-concluding stage contains the main standpoint “We have come here to let you know that change is coming, whether you like it or not” (standpoint 1).
These differences are noteworthy, as they are not to be ascribed as characteristic of the communicative activity type or the political domain. In political speeches it is rather commonplace to make one’s standpoint known early on – that is, should it not already be known to the opposing party and the audience, which is oftentimes the case. Similarly, the confrontation stage is likely to occur early on, in order to clearly establish the central topics and issues – i.e. difference of opinion – at hand.
Greta chooses to reserve her main standpoint for the concluding confrontation stage. Earlier on, she invites both her audiences, and humanity at large, to collective action – “Imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to” (argument 1.1.1.1) as well as open communication – “we have to speak clearly, no matter how uncomfortable that may be” during the opening stage. Throughout the argumentation stage, which comprises the majority of the speech, Greta builds up tension, argument by argument. She lures her audiences in – the primary through accusations “you are not mature enough to tell it like it is” (standpoint 1.1.2’.1.1), and by pulling at their heartstrings “you say you love your children above all else, yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes” (standpoint 1.1.2’.4).
After providing numerous arguments, standpoints, and sub-standpoints, Thunberg drops her main standpoint on the primary audience, merely notifying them of the fact that “change is coming, whether you like it or not” (standpoint 1) and “the real power belongs to the people” (standpoint 1.1), referring to the secondary audience. These two crucial standpoints are followed by a “Thank you”, after which Greta considers the discussion to have come to an end.
A resolution of the difference of opinion is left implicit (if at all present), as the order and entanglement of the discussion stages may not even allow for it. Yet, it does not seem as if Greta was in pursuit of a textbook resolution in the first place – it has been tried and ignored before – and “we have run out of excuses and we are running out of time”. As per the specific institutional point of this speech (described in section 3.2), the goal is to inform – rather than convince – the audience of one’s stance on the topic of climate change. Thunberg does this strategically and successfully, by presenting her main standpoint without leaving room for questioning. While this approach strays from theoretical and conventional norms in terms of the communicative activity type, it is nonetheless successful.
4.3 Paragraph-by-paragraph analysis
My name is Greta Thunberg. I am 15 years old. I am from Sweden. I speak on behalf of Climate Justice Now.
In the opening lines of the speech, Thunberg introduces herself, explicitly mentioning her age and the organization she speaks on behalf of. Within the communicative activity type of a political speech, it is commonplace to state one’s name and the organization, group or government one is affiliated with or speaking on behalf of. The stating of her age is a topical choice, as it is not a formal requirement in the domain of political communication, and would appear unusual if done by most political figures. Greta wants to draw attention to the fact that she is merely a teenager, in contrast to her audience, which consists of world leaders significantly older than her. Anticipating on doubt of the audience that she might not be knowledgeable enough to speak about political issues due to her young age, she makes the choice of stating her age openly. Besides being a formal requirement of the activity type, mentioning the organization she speaks for is a strategic maneuver to showcase her involvement with the topic of climate justice, substantiating her claims.
Many people say that Sweden is just a small country and it doesn’t matter what we do. But I’ve learned that you are never too small to make a difference.
This anecdote (argument 1.1.1) touches upon a recurring topic of Greta’s speech, that anyone, no matter how small, can make a difference. Again, she alludes to her personal experience of being judged for her youth and small size, and not being taken seriously or regarded as having an impact because of these traits. It supports the sub-standpoint (1.1 “The real power belongs to the people”). This argument is phrased as a seemingly neutral statement, yet is a stylistically marked and strategic one. The first presentational device to be encountered in the speech, the implication is that the opposite is true – it does in fact matter what ‘small countries’, or young people, do. The argument “you are never too small to make a difference” (1.1.1) is an encouragement to Greta’s secondary audience, the addressees, particularly those who are younger and may feel their actions do not have an impact. At the same time, this maneuver is also adapted to the primary audience, as a statement of defiance towards their anticipated doubt, as alluded to in the opening lines.
And if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not going to school, then imagine what we could all do together if we really wanted to. But to do that, we have to speak clearly, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.
The headlines Thunberg is referring to in this section concern worldwide school strikes, inspired by the Fridays for Future movement she started mere months prior to the speech. Another personal topic for her, yet Greta makes the topical choice to mention the movement, and mass school strikes it had provoked, without calling it by its name explicitly or taking credit by establishing herself as the founder. It is “children all over the world” who have sparked a debate with a small act – “just by not going to school”, not “participants in the movement I founded”. This presentational device shows it is not Greta’s intention to center herself, but rather to bring attention to a growing movement and rise in youth activism. The small act of skipping school is shown to have a big impact, confirming Greta’s previous statement that “you are never too small to make a difference”. Greta’s goal is to bring attention to the climate crisis, and make it clear to decision makers that young people do care, and are taking action to make it clear to the public. This argument, that a group of schoolchildren can have a worldwide impact through a small action (argument 1.1.1.1), is a strategic maneuver to support argument 1.1.1, namely “you are never too small to make a difference”. The presentation of both of these arguments, in turn, add to the effectiveness of the main standpoint, while simultaneously being an encouragement for the secondary audience.
Thunberg goes on to address both audiences in the line “image what we could all do together if we really wanted to” (part of argument 1.1.1.1), calling for cooperation. While this argument and the following “we have to speak clearly” is an encouragement to the addressees, to the primary audience it is rather a warning. A collective ‘we’ has to speak clearly; the implication is that the primary audience of political leaders and decision makers has not been speaking clearly (enough) until this point. Thunberg maneuvers strategically and uses the presentational device of the passive voice to state that the climate crisis must be addressed with open communication “no matter how uncomfortable that may be”. The implication here is that it makes the primary audience uncomfortable, yet she refers from directly ascribing blame to them – so far. While Greta is not directly accusing the primary audience thus far, her statement is confrontational, a sign of what she is to say next. This chain of arguments, with the invitation to speak clearly about the issue at hand, signifies the opening stage of the discourse.
You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular. You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake.
This is the first instance of address directed at the primary audience, along with the first accusations. It further marks the beginning of the argumentation stage. In terms of presentational devices, Thunberg uses mild phrasing, equating “green eternal economic growth” (argument 1.1.2’.1) with “the same bad ideas that got us into this mess” (argument 1.1.2’.2.1). She could have chosen to be more specific, and therefore even more confronting, in her phrasing and present these arguments in a more clear-cut manner. In such a case, “green eternal economic growth” could be described as “policies which favor the economy and are aimed at maximizing financial gain”, and phrasing “the same bad ideas that got us into this mess” as “previous actions which are causing climate destruction”. Yet, the fact she chooses not to do this is in itself a strategic maneuver. Simultaneously a clear choice from the pool of topical potential, the “bad ideas” translate to unfavorable or insufficient environmental laws and policies, “this mess” refers to the current state of the earth’s climate and the climate crisis at large.
Greta addresses her primary audience in a relatively informal way, accusing them of not doing their jobs properly, with the implicit argument (1.1.2’) “(and you are not treating it as a crisis)”. The audience is “too scared of being unpopular” (argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1a), in which case unpopularity is equated to the loss of votes, or lowered approval ratings. At this point in time, the “only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake”; another instance of
a mild, informal device – the trope of a metaphor. Yet the primary audience fails to do so – “you aren’t pulling the emergency brake” (argument 1.1.2’.2). Greta’s seemingly simple tropes, such that they are expressed in simple, understandable language, do contain the most essential terms of the topical potential – the climate emergency. In the case of both argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1a and 1.1.2’.2, the arguer’s strategic maneuvering derails, the balance between the pursuit of reasonableness and effectiveness is lost in favor of the latter, and she commits two
ad hominem fallacies, personal attacks against the opponent.
You are not mature enough to tell it like is. Even that burden you leave to us children. But I don’t care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.
Here Thunberg confronts her primary audience with another ad hominem personal attack on their (un)professional behavior – they are “not mature enough” to speak the truth about the climate crisis (argument 1.1.2’.1.1). In this instance the prevalence of effectiveness over reasonableness is deliberate, a strategic maneuver of its own, albeit a fallacious one. The burden of speaking about the ugly truth is left to “us children” – Greta makes it a personal manner, by establishing a sub-group of the secondary audience, the children and youth – including herself. This is a juxtaposition between the primary and the secondary (sub-) audience. Again, the primary audience’s care for “being popular” (argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1a) is employed as a presentational device, to symbolize politician’s aim to (re)gain votes, thereby maintaining power and monetary gain. Thunberg clearly establishes that she – on the contrary – does not care about “being popular” (argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1b), but rather has a focus on “climate justice and the living planet” (1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1a). The implicated argument here is that the primary audience does not care about these issues, certainly not to a large enough extent. Thunberg paints the picture of a dichotomy – one either cares about one or the other, a false dilemma fallacy. By committing these fallacies, Greta breaks the discussion rules towards the primary audience in order to be more effective, as well as provoke a reaction in her secondary audience. The less clear line between reasonableness and effectiveness can partially be ascribed to the communicative activity type. It is not unusual for politicians to personally attack their opponents – in the domain of political communication the aim for effectiveness often prevails. Still, a 15-year-old insulting world leaders is noteworthy, and will certainly gain the secondary audience’s attention. Therefore, the ad hominem attacks towards the primary audience are simultaneously a strategic maneuver aimed at showcasing to the secondary audience that Greta is not afraid to call anybody – even high-ranking officials – out on their wrongful actions, or lack thereof, in regard to the climate crisis.
Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.
In this argument(1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1a) and the one that follows (argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b), Thunberg’s topical choice of speaking about a collective, “our” civilization, is simultaneously an adaptation to all audiences, bringing attention to the fact that the climate crisis will affect every living being on the planet. Thereby, she presents the issue as being personal to not only herself, but everybody in the room and beyond. At the same time, the presentational device of the passive voice in “is being sacrificed” does not explicitly ascribe direct responsibility to anyone. The utilization of the passive voice is a step back from the direct personal attacks in the previous arguments. Similar to expressions such as “the king of non-apologies: mistakes
were made” (Memmott 2013, emphasis added), the passive voice widens dissociation, both
among those responsible for the actions, as well as those suffering from the consequences. Greta further uses opposition as a presentational device, in contrasting the “very small number of people” who benefit from the current situation and will, should the status quo regarding the issue at hand not change, keep on making “enormous amounts of money”. In the presentation of this argument (1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1a), Thunberg pushes the boundaries of effectiveness.
Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury. It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few.
A parallel to the previous argument (1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1a), and this one (argument 1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b) begins with drawing attention to “our biosphere”, which, just like the civilization, does not distinguish between people of different nation-states, socio-economic backgrounds, or religious beliefs. Greta’s topical choice of describing two aspects – civilization and biosphere – which are universally the same for all human beings, brings both audiences to view the issue from the same perspective, and perceive it as personal. As mentioned, this argument is drawn in parallel to the previous one, and features similar devices, such as the use of passive voice in “is being sacrificed”, as well as the opposition between “sufferings of the many” and “luxuries of the few”. Again, the argument is aimed at achieving the rhetorical goal of convincing the (secondary) audience, which Thunberg does by stretching its effectiveness. The implicit argument and covert accusation (1.1.2’.1.1.1b.1’.1b.1b) are that the few rich people are the ones who benefit most from the system, as they are also in charge of it. Although implicit, it is directed at the primary audience, who are capable of changing the status quo, and whose collective action is more impactful, and therefore urgently needed than that of “the many” in suffering. Thunberg takes this chance to make another personal connection and
