I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING

A recent article by this writer suggested that in this day and age, we are exposed to too much information; the result being a false perception of our beautiful world because all the newsworthy items present only what is dysfunctional in that world.

Drip-fed with that kind of information over the years, we have developed a need for it; not an especially healthy outcome. What I may have neglected to mention was the means by which we obtain such information – the computer and, increasingly, the smartphone. The dependence on those addiction-creating machines can give rise to the corresponding punishment for over-reliance. As, indeed, what happened to me yesterday when my dearly-beloved laptop failed me. And really did so, with no expected recovery of important documents; only a small proportion having been saved by the writer in an external hard drive; a very careless mistake. A minor, but chastening, dimension of that disaster was having to write the weekly article again.

Afresh

It wasn’t much good anyway. Starting afresh, there came to mind what a number of linguists – in their own mother tongue, of course – expressed in a conversation some years ago. Their view was that the English language was a doddle (that is, very easy) when just covering the basics to get understood. But to be perfect, or nearly so, is extremely difficult. You hardly need to mention the words ‘rough, bough, dough, cough and through’, identical in structure, but all pronounced differently, to understand the learner’s frustration. Then we have the words that change in meaning according to the context in which used. One such is the word ‘argument’. It means expressing, then supporting, a view. But the differing context and style of arguments create two very different meanings to the word; both potentially no-win scenarios but here follow a number of suggestions that, in theory at least, can give rise to the rarely seen concessional smile on the countenance of either party.

Meaning

The first meaning is found in the phrase – ‘presenting an argument’. This invariably arises in a formal context. It may be presenting to a Board of Directors, appealing to the general public through the media, or even delivering to a civil or criminal court, albeit usually through a lawyer.  The structure of the argument is of critical importance. A classic structure is an introduction of the issue and its importance, and the background, followed by the justification and supporting evidence. A useful component is then the anticipation and refutation of the counterclaims that disagree with one’s argument; and then the conclusion, the announcement of which wakes everyone up (lol). The protocol is to remain polite and restrained though out.
The second meaning lies in the phrase – ‘getting involved in an argument’. This is an entirely different scenario, and arguably a more interesting version for the reader.

There’s nothing formal in this kind of argument and usually defying any amicable solution. But it is the one far more likely to win over the opposition than the formal version of argument; often because of the independence and absence of need for any public posturing by either party. It may include anger and regrettable outbursts, but more likely carry the potential for a spontaneous agreement when the talker strikes gold. But as with the formal version, there is a methodology to utilise if one is to hit that bull’s eye. But, before we reflect on that, let’s not forget the age-old expression – you can never win an argument; when you lose it, you lose it; and when you win it, you also lose it. But participants can, and do, change their minds, despite the instinctive reluctance to give ground easily.

With this kind of argument there is no formalisation but observing a structure helps considerably, while staying calm and above interruptions. To reach and hold the higher ground you present facts and ask searching questions – ‘What evidence do you have for that’ or ‘Would a decent person or country do that’? Underpinning a victory in a lively argument is the art of persuasion, with a very careful selection of words and phrases. The word ‘but’ should remain on the bench. “Your point is valid BUT it needs validation,” negates the positive impact of what precedes it. Far better to say, “Your point is valid AND I think we should examine it further.”  Encouraging words such as ‘I understand what you’re saying and …’ and ‘That’s a very good point’, have a powerful impact when used strategically. The word ‘absolutely’ has gained special status in recent times, mainly because it is kind to both tongue and ear. Rather like ‘siyavumelana’ in siSwati.

Where disagreement exists over issues of national importance, the corresponding public dialogue, with one or both sides entitled to present their argument, will never produce immediate agreement. But what greatly promotes an orderly presentation of relevant and respectful arguments, and boosts the chances of an early agreement between participants, is the presence of mediation and moderation by respected intermediaries.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: