DIALECTICAL AND RHETORICAL

ANALYSIS OF “DEMENTIA”

CAMPAIGN

ANGHEL ALEXANDRA, MASTER MCPE, ANUL I

1

Around November 2011, the Dementia campaign appeared as an attempt of NHS to spread

useful information about a medical issue, that became a national priority due to its tremendous

proliferation and lasck of reaction form citizens. This deliberately release around Christmas

period, marks a desire of aligning the tendency of the people to behave better with the people

they have in their doorstep, to exhale a feeling of solidarity especially among those who are

forceless in a fight with a problem with the Alzheimer care support. This overall campaign

was a result form the desire to attract a wider audience toward this critical point, which could

not be diminished early by different local actions and more cases of undiagnosed Alzheimer

were discovered. Acting as an awareness campaign there is no doubt the appeal to emotions is

a strategic step and that the difference of opinion is easier to direct in favor of the initiator, as

the examples ar from a daily basis, are situations anyone can relate to. Actually was a £ 2

million campaign, a material cost whose efficiency was prerequisite for an improvement in

the medical management and in the early treatment and support provided for Dementia

patients. A smaller price if we consider that only one hospital spends £ 6 million excess for

Alzhimer pacients that were not diagnosed in time.

The social context show as a useful resource to understand where the difference of opinion

appeared and why the diagnose of the Alzheimer disease cand be extremely tricky, the cure

has not yet found, the severe symptoms and the rapid development depicts a type of disease

with serious implications. Except all these, people still live under the assumption that

forgetfullness is a normal step in the ageing process and pay no attention to this deviations

and mental changes. Patients with Alzheimer suffer more that simple memory lapses,

evolving in time and transforming in incapabilities to perform the daily routines and to liv a

normal life ahead. Who are the society behind this campaign? The Alzheimer Society and

NHS (abbreviated from National Helpline Society), a continuing healthcare institution, whose

aim is to help people fight with the disease they experience, to improve their life. Then, the

difference of opinion is carefully reflectef in the starting point, which esentialize a common

belief that is absolute natural to forget something, while the protagonist speaks from the

expert position and brings evidences and assure that only by a medical diagnose one would

know what is his diagnostic.

In the case of the campaign initiated by NHS against Alzheimer disease we deal with an

argumentative discourse, whose dominant determination was to spread a sense of awareness

to the citizens who may have encountered or would might be put in front of a delicate issue

like this. Figures showed that an activism driven campaign was required as long as 6 from 10

people with Dementia go undiagnosed and although this disease is not curable, being found

2

on time due to an appropriate medical diagnose, could mean a real improvement in the life of

the subjects and in the life of the family around him/her. We deliberately bring into discussion

the life of the family as an unseparate concern for one particular reason, the receiver of the

message is not the person affected, but those who are around such cases. The structure of the

discourse blend three different types of deixis(personal pronouns): We – the Department of

Health, You- people responsible for the life of those suffering of Alzheimer and They – the

subjects. The analysis will prove that this is a complex argumentation, channeled in two

directions and multiple argumentation, because it gathers two concerns and two answers

without questions: Is memory loss a sign of Dementia? and Can really help the medical

support?. These propositions are assigned to only one standpoint, which will require a

separate type of approach with their own set of unexpressed premises and their own

dialectical implications.

The campaigns that stands for the cause of the Alzheimer society, continuing healthcare,

invoked trivial examples, like the bath, the smoke or the car to deliver signals of worries

among the citizens, who must understand what is the essential difference between forgetting

random, useless things and simply not remembering more important ones, like the color of the

car. The voice of the campaign embodies the voice of the antagonist, who refuses to accept

the general tendency of people to deny the evidences and to extend subject’s agony because of

their ignorance regarding the real symptoms of Dementia. Whatsoever, an unexpressed

positive standpoint is advanced: Old people(that repeatedly forget recent things) should see a

doctor. In this standpoint the adjective old is visually enhanced by the three examples

presented, emphasizing on the aspect that Alzheimer is a common disease among those once

getting old. The antagonist cannot accept the somehow unexpressed standpoint of the

protagonist, as we thought this discourse as an answer to some previous lack of reactions from

people, visible in the increased number of Alzheimer untreated cases. Being an awareness

intention and taking into consideration the social background (up to 400 000 of British people

who do not receive medical support), we tend to believe that this advert urges to reaction from

volunteers and functions as an antagonist. Moreover, to sustain our idea, we will point out

some statements from the official online publication of NHS, found on their site: “Dementia

primarily affects older people, but it is not a normal part of ageing or inevitable, as some

people might believe. In the UK there are around 10.3 million people aged 65 and over, which

means that many millions of older people are not affected”1. Even if the intervention of the

1 http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/government-Dementia-campaign-learn-symptoms.aspx, last accessed 21.06, 22.00

3

protagonist is not explicitly expressed in this particular argumentative structure, the social

context helped us reflecting on the status of the protagonist, due to the fact that a difference of

opinion arises when two parties do not fully agree on a given standpoint. In our case we speak

about an implicit difference of opinion, as we considered the first sentence: Many people

suffer from memory loss, as not functioning as a proper standpoint advanced by the people,

but just a general belief to be further contradicted. Though, the theoretical frames guide our

analysis toward the idea of seeing this Alzheimer society/NHS as a protagonist, not solely an

antagonist, because by countering the standpoint of the initial thought protagonist : Many

people suffer from memory loss with an opposing standpoint: Old people that forget should

see a doctor, the antagonist becomes a protagonist of his own standpoint, having its own

attempt to convince. So, from now on we will name the Alzheimer Society as the protagonist

of the argumentation, because the first sentence acts only as a social frame, a starting point

that gives us a hint about this national problem. The difference of opinion arises from the

contradiction between the memory loss as an imminent trait of the senility and the memory

loss as a symptom of Dementia.

As far as the sub standpoints are concerned, there are three deriving from the advanced

standpoint, on the one hand Memory loss could be a sign of Dementia ,on the other hand that

refering to the signs as a barometer to detect a possible disease: Spotting the signs early

means get them the right support and treatment coordinated with an expected outcome: And

you get to keep the person you know and love a bit longer. They reflect two directions toward

the argumentation is conducted, as the protagonist anticipates a further doubt from the people,

the symptoms and a necessary forehand diagnose. This broader approach means that NHS

official position should not be further more questioned and the defense of this party should be

understood in terms of rational and real arguments.

The burden of proof remains in the hands of the protagonist, who proceeds in favor of his

position with a multiple perspective toward the standpoint. The overall advice that turns out to

be the standpoint: Go see a doctor if you have repeatedly experienced memory loss is

connected and relates to more than one proposition. This is why we are speaking about two

directions (the memory loss as a potential sign of Dementia and preventing the evolution of

Dementia just by spotting the signs) involved to sustain the standpoint expressed by NHS

party, therefore it is a multiple type of argumentation. Alzheimer is a complex and tricky issue

and people have to stop playing with the life of the ones around them. What the protagonist

argues is that an overspread negligence and a hollow judgment according to which memory

loss is nothing but a natural outcome of ageing with no need to worry and consequently to

4

react is wrong and people should take attitude. Moreover, after establishing there is a multiple

difference of opinion, the next step is to provide the reasons why this is a non-mixed

argumentation. Firstly, only one party exposes his arguments to justify an opinion and

secondly, only this party is committed to defend the standpoint, no other voice interferes in

the advancement of the argumentation. All three messages are constructed in a multiple non-

mixed difference of opinions, where the initial protagonist manifests a compliance with the

idea that many old people suffer from memory loss, but then comes the NHS position as a

counteraction toward this general rumor, showing by example the contrary.

A critical discussion is required to establish whether the standpoint and the sub standpoints

at issue ought to be accepted or not. In the case of the Alzheimer campaign we cannot speak

about a certain way of solving this difference of opinion, that memory loss is or is not a sign

of Dementia, because only the future actions from the volunteers and people will prove if the

implementation of the NHS’ standpoint succeeded. Moreover, we are not dealing with an

ideal model of critical discussion, therefore we will find out that some stages are not explicit,

their omission is usually motivated by the fact that some stages are taken for granted. We are

obviously referring the staring stages. Proceeding to the first stage of the argumentation

discussion, we are analyzing the confrontation stage. This is the moment that triggers doubt

and uncertainty among the parties involved. They realize that their points of view collide. In

this non mixed difference of opinion the implicit standpoint (the general opinion in regards to

Dementia and the visit to a doctor) is not immediately accepted by the NHS. even though the

position of that party, which gathers a mass conception, is not explicitly expressed, we still

have to take it into account, as the opposed party of this difference of opinion. Otherwise, we

would not have spoken about an argumentative scheme. The clear image of the old lady and

men contrasted to the blurred background signifies that NHS points out potential doubts and

objections. Additionally, by advancing a starting point, a general aspect, an idea you agree

beforehand, like “Many people suffer from memory loss when they get older” means that

there is a common ground to start from. The adjectives “many” and “old” entail the essence of

yet still unexpressed verbal friction. Also, this first sentence can be analyzed as being the

opponent’s perspective, the mass conception which is brought to be debunked by NHS. After,

comes on the stage the protagonist (NHS-the initial antagonist, who did not agree with the

mass conception and became the protagonist of his own standpoint), whose point of view

disjoints from the general judgment. We are now reaching the opening stage, when the two

roles are exchanged, divided and the protagonist opposes his belief with the help of a

coordinative conjunction, “but”, which adds a nuance of contrast to these two jointed

5

independent clauses. We have previously mentioned the starting point and so we step out

from the introductive section to the argumentation stage, where only the NHS’ perspective is

explicitly promoted. In this particular moment, the Alzheimer society brings into stage some

sub standpoints to assess the validity of the standpoint: “Memory loss could be a sign of the

early stages of Dementia”. We deal with a visual iteration as well. We see in the add only old

people and we instantly understand the indirectness due to some semiotic elements, that

accelerates the efficiency of the linguistic signs. First of all, the easiest decoding channels our

scrutiny to the lost sight of the people shown, who simply gazes with no reason, a blight face

expression mirroring their inner sufferings and problems. Secondly, following this path, there

is another decoding to be made. The overlap of the images with the car, the sink or the oven is

deliberately puzzled, portraying the clear and lucid left side of the brain, while the right is

blurred. This particular hemisphere of the brain is responsible for processing the information

in a non-verbal way, simultaneously, intuitively, non-linear and atemporal. All these

aforementioned features describe the new illusionary mechanism of thinking that seizes the

world of Alzheimer subjects, who stop having a holistic outlook of every action they make

and start to forget relevant aspects, such as the color of the car, the run of the bath, the pan on

the oven. The images emphasize that, after a clear distinction is laid on the line, the

protagonist would not accept defeat with such good arguments and the understandable

distinctions between a harmless, transient incident of omitting common things and the

manifestation of Dementia. People suffering from Dementia generally face a decline in the

function of the judgment abilities and we include here memory, thinking and speaking.

Although, the symptoms may be similar to memory loss, an atrophy of the brain cellular

tissue should trigger an alarm even if it initiates to older people. What also emphasize the

pictures is that Alzheimer’s subjects begin to exhibit a difficulty in remembering recent

events, but not events occurred long time ago.

The concluding stage cannot be integrated in an awareness campaign, whose real goal,

besides the dialectical and rhetorical ones of winning the difference of opinion, is to see

changes and to call the volunteers to action, to give medical aid to Alzheimer people.

We have understood that the formulation of the argumentation proceeds its strategies of

defense in three directions, bringing a specific feature of multiple type of argumentation.

These are of equal weight, each of them could concretize into a defense, enough to stand

alone and support the standpoint. We have analyzed the standpoint as Old people, that forget

recent things/experience repeated memory loss, should see a doctor. Afterwards the three

main sub standpoints from this multiple argumentation are:

6

(1.1) Memory loss could be the early stages of Dementia (1.1) ;

(1.1.1) Adding the bubble bath is easy to forget/ To forget a birthday or leave the front

door open/ Forgetting where they put a car is one thing

(1.1.2) Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place could be a sign of

something more serious/ Or nearly burn the house down/ Not being able remember

whether is blue, red, silver or white is another entirely.

(1.2a)Spotting the signs early means getting them the right support and treatment

(1.2b) (With the right treatment) you get to keep the person you know and love a little

bit longer

The Alzheimer society advanced two arguments (1.1 with all the examples different for

each ad and 1.2) that can be understood as reasons given for reasons, the interpretation must

be directed toward a subordinative type between them, because these standpoints resemble a

defense formed layer by layer. Also, there is a coordinative argumentation established

between 1.2a and 1.2b. The difference between these 2 strategies is that the first relationship

established, namely subordinative is different for each campaign, it provides the examples

with the bath, the car and the smoke, while the common arguments for all the three

commercials connect in a coordinative argumentation that functions as a single attempt to

solve the difference of opinion. The protagonist anticipated that the sub standpoint of memory

loss as a sign of Dementia could be easily contradicted and he advanced another sub

standpoint, reinforcing that the early discovery brings the right treatment and support,

therefore a qualitative lengthen of the Alzheimer subjects’ life. Additionally, each sub

standpoint has an unexpressed premise:

People should make a difference between memory loss and Dementia (1.1.1’)

Memory loss is one of the Dementia symptom (1.1.2’)

A visit to the doctor gives you the right diagnosis (1.2a.1’)

Doctor is the only solution (there is no cure, only treatment). (1.2a 2’)

The treatment really functions (1.2b 1’)

Consequently, we thought that there are three types of argumentation, a multiple due to the

many sub standpoints advanced, a subordinative found in the enumeration of the examples

step by step, which means that accepting one constraints you to accept the other also and a

coordinative argumentation visible at all the three ads. The two coordinated sub standpoints

are also connected at a syntactic level by the conjunction “and.”, a grammatical sign that

reinforces on the idea of dialectical solidarity. The complexity of this argumentative structure

7

can be translated as a condition to win the difference of opinion, regarding an issue which

attracted a lot of controversy and questions without answer.

According to Roland Barthes, the visual and the linguistic structures are cooperative, while

still having their own identity and elements. So, we should stop our investigation to a dual

interpretation of the message, based on words, grammatical design and on visual traits: lines,

surface and shades. As, aforesaid, both the images and the messages participate together as an

united form of argumentation, meant to support the standpoint. In advertising, an image is

never neutral, it captions the verbal point of view, in a state of complementary character that

helps in the interpretation of the overall rhetorical orchestration. It is almost like an

intertextuality found at the verbal level, a claim from the picture, which is positioned in a way

to divert the understanding of the reader toward a certain path. The term “anchorage” reflects

a theory based on which the main function of an image is to tell how to read a text and it can

attract a different perception of the message due to the visual frame. Then, the language

comes to elucidate the purpose of the image and only after we continue our decoding of the

non verbal signals in the language area. There are also many ways to interpret the pictures

with the old people, but the anchorage points out a specific meaning. In the three

advertisements of the Alzheimer society the anchorage answers to our doubts: what is

memory loss? Memory loss is when you forget things. Why should i worry if it is only this?

Because it could be a sign of Dementia. Is everyone affected irrespective of age or gender?

No, take a look at the picture, both men and women are affected and figures showed that two

thirds of people with Dementia are women and that one in three people over 65 will develop

Dementia. Then the text is anchored to the image of the sink, car, smoke, showing

straightforwardly that any kind of irregularities in brain cells can lead to Dementia or

Dementia-like disease. Anyhow, this increasingly symptom is well worth talking to a doctor

and see if there are truly or not some potential risks to endanger your mental wellbeing.

The notion of relay describes the relationship between text and image as a cohesive

functionality, cooperating to send the same message. In our case, the old people over 65 years

old form the images emphasize on the aspect that Alzheimer develops at an advanced age,

that the actions of the patients have alarming consequences and that they are a danger for

themselves and for the people to whom the enter into contact: smoke as a sign for fire, the

abandoned car as a sign of forgetfulness, the overflown bathtub as a sign of flood. Driving a

car and causing an accident is anytime feasible, a fire also could imply death, injuries.

Therefore, we are talking about the caption and the illustrative use of the images in an

advertorial context, where the discourse’s purpose is to establish a cohesive proportion

8

between the image itself and its verbal description. The commercial message loses its

potential ambiguity and fully participates to the argumentation, revealing lack of rambling,

omission or contradiction, that could be further signaled by the opponents as invalid

arguments. Leo Groarke also discussed about the idea of visual and verbal arguments, about

that the illustrations “play an argumentative role in the verbal scheme in which they are

attached. We cannot deal with visual argumentation without recognizing visual meaning”1.

This dispute between memory loss and Alzheimer is a reflection of either the lack of

information available, the ignorance of the people the manifestation of indifference.

Therefore, the attempt of the these ads is to give some medical, reason-based arguments to

solve this difference of opinion. In advertising, all images have an inherent purpose, so that

we must not value them from an aesthetic point of view, but rather construe form their

symbolic perspective, in this way we are going to add also a disambiguation contribution to

the verbal argumentation: “They are not haphazard visuals”2.

All the dialectical strategies function concomitantly in order to assure the power and the

validity of the advanced standpoint. the reasoning employed by these three commercials

works as a symptomatic type, implying that the standpoint is defended by citing in the

arguments either a sign, a symptom or a particular feature of the idea claimed in the

standpoint. For instance, the general idea that memory loss could be a sign of Dementia is

transferred into a symptomatic scenario, in which an example is introduced. This particular

case consists of the three cases described in the ads: Not remembering they ran the bath in the

first place is a sign of something more serious, Not being able to remember whether is blue,

red, silver or white is entirely different, To forget a birthday, leave the front door open or

nearly burn the house down. Some critical questions that arise in this very moment are that

“Can memory loss really be a sign of Dementia?”, “Aren’t there other types of diseases that

have the same symptom of memory loss?”.

The symptomatic structure is as following, based on a common structure in which we

included the arguments, Y is true of X, Z is true of X, Z is symptomatic of Y:

1. Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia.

Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place is a sign of something more

serious.

Therefore, not remembering they ran the bath in the first place is symptomatic of Dementia.

1 Leo Groarke in Frans H van Eemeren- editor, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic-Sat, Amsterdam, 2002 , chapter Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual arguments, p.142.2 Idem. p.148.

9

2. Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia.

Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is entirely

different.

Therefore, Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is

symptomatic of Dementia.

3. Memory loss could be an early sign of Dementia.

Nearly burn the house down

Therefore, nearly burn the house down is asymptomatic of Dementia.

Regarding the main body of the adverts we have analyzed it as assigning a causal relation

and the scheme was realized as following:

X IS TRUE OF Y Spotting the signs early means the right treatment

Z IS TRUE OF Y You get to keep the person you love more due to the right treatment

X LEADS TO Y Spotting the signs leads to keep the person you love more.

The critical question that arises in this type is: Does always the right treatment lead to

prolong the life of the people you car?

Besides the pragma-dialectical framework in which we find an accurate relationship within

the methods of effectiveness in respect to the argumentation and the defense of the standpoint,

in this dispute come into light another attempt to solve the difference of opinion in the favor

of the protagonist. To understand why both dialectic and rhetoric are intermingled in an

attempt to persuade the audience, Professor Eugene Garver proposed a distinction, one being

responsible for excellence, while the other reacts in the name of the victory. The commitment

to make an effort of convincing people that repeatedly memory loss is a sign of Dementia

required a thoughtful cooperation between these two levels. The expectations of making the

standpoint defensible against any doubt or criticism derive from the rational norms and the

arguments proposed. For example, Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser pointed out that

“Dialectic establishes norm instrumental in achieving this purpose ( resolving difference of

opinion) – maintaining certain standards of reasonableness and expecting others to comply

with the same critical standards.”1. This idea is continued by Eugene Garver who adds that

“These norms by themselves never determine what anyone will say. They allow a certain

1 Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser in Eugene Garver, Comments on “Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma- Dialectical Framework: the Case of R. J. Reynolds, U.S.A, 2001, p.309.

10

freedom and within that freedom lies in the rhetorical opportunity to solve the difference of

opinion in their own favor”1. We can justify the presence of both due to their dissociate way

of action toward the same goal of solving the difference of opinion, because the rhetorical

aims enable a sort of relationship between the speaker and the receiver, like a charitable

alignment to the people’s needs and set of expectations. The main difference rely on the stress

put upon the persuasive weapons used by the dialectic strategy, which is trying to find the

best, unbeatable arguments just for the sake of reasoning. Dialectic means an opponent, a

person whose views have to be changed with the help or the dialectical arguers/cognitive

approach (standpoint, sub standpoints, unexpressed premises, the linkage), while rhetoric

implies an adaptation of the message to the audience, to what they want to hear and to how

you cover the message. A strategic maneuvering directs any attempt of the protagonist to the

ultimate task of winning, otherwise he would not have set out an argumentation. The point is

that the rhetorical dimension appears in all stages of the argumentative discourse, following

the attempts of conciliations and of showing through cognitive tools and proofs the validity of

the standpoint due to the dialectic implication. Within the rhetorical perspective we ought to

speak about three elements: topical choice, audience and the rhetorical figures. Foremost, the

concept of audience needs further consideration, because it became the participant of the

discourse, it is the focus point, the one intended to adopt a position, to engage in this

simultaneous scroll of arguments. The intention of this awareness campaign was to increase

the adherence of the members from the audience, to win their consent regarding a future

change and this is why the tone of the message is personal, sympathetic, it gathers emotions

(keep the person you love). The argumentative structure abounds in rational reasons. Though,

pathos is elevated here, does not take control over logos, does not became a sloppy message.

The receiver should empathize with the people from the images, should share pity and

consequently should take action and go to a doctor. This is the only solution given, anyhow

there is no cure, and the receivers who experience at home similar cases must not deprive the

subjects from the guaranteed chance of a right treatment and an improved life. Here we deal

with a merging of logos and pathos, invoking emotion of solidarity, which will further be the

basis for the concrete gesture of paying a visit to doctor and advising others to do the same. It

implies the power of example.

As far as the topical choice is concerned, even though we are speaking about a complex

disease, whose manifestation generates all sorts of other symptoms, the initiators of the

campaign chose to put an equal sign between Alzheimer and memory loss, in order to give

1 Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser in Eugene Garver, op.cit.,U.S.A, 2001, p.309.

11

people a simple but still proper definition of Alzheimer. We are again confronting with the

same idea that is an awareness campaign, that is actively concerned with the wellbeing of the

citizens and wants to inform them as much as possible. The discourses promote a certain

social bound, outlining a call for reaction

The message of the images must be analyzed, the images carry connotations and persuade

the audience indirectly with the visual aid. There is no use of color, the low-sensory modality

invoke the gravity of the situation, which has two ends, a victorious one due to the right

treatment and a tragic one, when the Dementia subjects have to endure a life of disorientation,

confusion, a distorted reality with no turning back. The models do not look at the viewer, they

refuse to have an eye-contact, which means they search somewhere for help, in someone who

is willing to listen to their problems and to support them. Also, the images invite the audience

to enter in their intimate cadre (house), to stop being an outsider and manifest concern toward

their sorrow. The juxtaposition of the images, resembling a panoramic perspective suggest the

double identity, the double state of minds of the Alzheimer subjects, who may now be lucid

and think clear and in one second lose their judgment and be incoherent. The images takes us

into a private scene, into the inner reality of the people. The close-up reinforces also upon the

ideal of proximity, we see them, the difficulties they face and we must empathize with them

once we are translated into their bodies. It is like an exchange of lives between the antagonist,

the watchers of the ad and the subjects.

All these attempts, both visual, rhetorical and dialectical prove the intention of the party to

really win this whole difference of opinion. This is why he committed a fallacy, in the sense

that we stated the initial standpoint, that caused the difference of opinion, as being that

general conception, Many people suffer from memory loss. Then, this is not the standpoint

contradicted by the campaign, but the fact that memory loss is an early stage of Dementia.

Therefore, the party violates the standpoint rule, only because a derailment would provide the

frame for the actual speech meant to be transmitted to the citizens, to inform them about the

symptoms of Alzheimer.

The statements proposed by the protagonist to support the standpoint must be accepted due

to the construction of an easy analogy, a comparison between the significance and therefore

the manifestation of memory loss (forgetting a birthday, to put bubble bath) and Alzheimer

(forgetting the color of the car). The arguments carry logical, relevant examples, that

facilitates the understanding of the message and a further acceptance. But things would not

have advanced so smooth without a further proceeding to more arguments, as the sub

standpoints received more arguments. This argumentation did not stop at the starting levels,

12

because it could have implied an immediate negative feedback. The critical problem of

Dementia was not presented as a medical issue in technical terms, but rather a disease with

recognizable symptoms. The reasoning is logically valid, the individuals who experience

some collapses in the mental functions and that have severe implications and affect the

performance of the daily routines should go to the doctor. It is an advise that cannot harm

anyone, so both the symptomatic and the causal argumentative relationship function together

to invoke the importance of behaving precautionary. Regarding the causal relationship

between the arguments 1.2a and 1.2b we deal with a pragmatic type, because adopting idea of

the right treatment and support impose somehow the inclusion of the life

lengthen/improvement, a favorable consequence expected only by acting in the way the

standpoint recommends you. Acting in the direction mentioned, making a to diagnose, means

getting the right treatment and consequently some years added to the patient’s life. Who could

say ‘no’ to such a fruitful proposal? In conclusion, the soundness of this argumentative

discourse is logically valid and even though the concluding stage is not explicitly expressed

we believe that the difference of opinion should be solved in favor of the protagonist.

Argumentation structure

Advertising 1

1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor.

13

1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia.

1.1.1’ People should make a difference between memory loss and Dementia.

1.1.2’ Memory loss is one of the Dementia symptom.

1.1.1 Adding the bubble bath is easy to forget.

1.1.1.1. Not remembering they ran the bath in the first place could be a sign of something

more serious

1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment.

1.2a.1'A visit to the doctor gives you the right diagnosis

1.2a.2’Doctor is the only solution (there is no cure, only treatment)

1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer.

1.2b.1’ The treatment really functions.

Advertising 2

1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor.

1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia.

1.1.1. They forget a birthday, leave the front door open.

1.1.1.1. (They forget) nearly burn the house down.

1.1.1.1.1’ Burning th house down is something serious

1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment.

1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer

Advertising 3

1. Old people that forget recent things should see a doctor.

1.1. Memory loss could be the early stage of Dementia.

1.1.1. Forgetting where they put a car is one thing.

1.1.1.1. Not being able to remember whether the car is blue, red, silver or white is entirely

different.

1.1.1.1.1’ If you forget th color of the car you should chck the doctor.

1.2a Spotting the signs early means get them the right support and treatment.

1.2.b And you get to keep the person you know and love a little bit longer

Reference:

14

1. Eugene, Garver, Comments on “Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma- Dialectical

Framework: the Case of R. J. Reynolds, U.S.A, 2001.

2. Frans H van, Eemeren, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic-Sat, Amsterdam, 2002.

3. Frans H van, Eemeren, Strategic maneuvering in Argumentative discourse, John Benjamins

Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2010.

4. Frans H van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, A. Francisca Snoek Hnkemans, Argumentation.

Analysis. Evaluation. Presentation., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

5. Theo Van Leeuwen, Carey Jewitt, Handbook of Visual AnalysisSage Publications, 2008.

Internet source:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/government-Dementia-campaign-learn-

symptoms.aspx

15