Chapter 32. DIALOGIC/DIALECTIC Basics of Dialogic/Dialectic Writing --- Why?           Starting                                         Organizing                       Revising & Editing           --- Introduction This section explains the basics of writing and revising a dialogic/dialectic paper: why it exists and how to start, organize, and edit it.  You may want to first see the "Introduction" before reading this page.  Be sure, before or after reading this "Basics Page," to see "Sample Papers" by students.  For more advanced information, go to "Advanced Methods."                  Why This Type of Paper?    The heart of a dialogic or dialectic paper is a debate between two or more opposing positions.  It is never just one side of a debate, and it is never just your own opportunity to show why your side is right and others are wrong.  It is a fair, balanced look at opposing points of view.  Such writing primarily is an academic skill.  However, it also has important uses in the professional worlds. The other main chapter in this "Arguing" section, "Thesis Paper," discusses how to develop a paper using a single argument--a pro or a con for some issue.  However, there is an alternate method for developing argument essays, a method that is becoming increasingly used in college writing classes.  There are several names for this alternative, such as "debate," "dialogue," or "dialect."  They all mean much the same.  This type of assignment requires that you argue not just one opinion, but two or more.  Usually these opinions oppose each other.  In addition, sometimes you must offer a final opinion that is a compromise or a higher resolution of the previous opinions.  You do not have to believe in all the opinions.  In fact, it is very unlikely that you would; it is most likely that in writing this kind of paper, you will discuss your own belief on a subject at some point, even as you discuss one or more opposing points of view.  The important idea in writing dialogically is that in good academic writing, thinking, and speaking, you must be able to fairly and honestly understand and be able to discuss not just your own point of view, but also the viewpoints of those who oppose you.  This model of argument--the dialogic or dialectic--certainly is important for several reasons.  Some gender-difference theorists suggest that presenting two or three sides of  an argument is a more female way of arguing: that males tend to prefer arguing by presenting just one side of an issue (their own side), whereas females prefer to look at two or more sides before making a decision.   Other theorists point to the importance of viewing and discussing two or three different sides of an issue as being important in revolutionary systems of teaching.  Certainly debate was considered a fundamental freedom in the American Revolution, as the right for a number of people to communicate their own individual opinions is a basic right of our democracy.  Some theorists claim that the right to debate--to offer more than one point of view--also was one of the most important rights given to a citizen in the early Greek democracy of Athens, 500-300 B.C. Whatever the reasons or backgrounds, it is clear that one of the most important elements of a college education is the ability to see an issue or event from multiple viewpoints.  Multiple viewpoints means multiple opinions.  As a result, a debate, whether in a speech or on paper, is a very powerful way to analyze and understand an important issue.   There is no specific, popularly used name for this type of paper when it is completed as a paper or speech.  The word debate is accurate: it tends to imply an oral debate between two people, but it also can apply to a written paper in which you, the writer, compare opposing opinions.  The word "dialogue" also is accurate: it implies a kind of friendly, more casual oral discussion about opposing ideas, but it, too, can apply to a written paper in which you offer two or more opposing thoughts in a friendly, fair manner.  The word "dialectic" also can apply (for more on this, see "Advanced Methods" in this chapter.  In addition, when some instructors assign an analysis, what they want is an analysis of--or using--opposing points of view (see "Advanced Methods" for more on this). In the professional world, the ability to see and discuss multiple points of view enables a person to consider a greater variety of problems and solutions at work and to better evaluate other employees and clients.  Leaders also often are chosen from among those who can see multiple viewpoints.  This is because they can be trusted to work from a more balanced, fair, logical position than can people who only see their own viewpoints.  In addition, clients also learn to trust a person more who can see multiple viewpoints. --- Return to top.              How Will You Start?    The major section of WritingforCollege.org called "Starting" offers a number of useful ways to start thinking, speaking, and writing about a subject. The advice here, which follows, is for this chapter's type of paper in particular.  When brainstorming a dialogic essay, imagine that you are observing a debate among three or more people who have very different viewpoints on an important subject or question.  Those who start the debate clearly oppose each other, and their positions seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.  The final person(s) offers some kind of compromise or looks at the issue from a higher or entirely new point of view.  You also might imagine two people arguing in court.  Each argues his or her own position; then the judge offers a third and final opinion that is a compromise or different point of view. A dialogic essay really is a combination of a series of what we might call "mini-thesis papers": each time you write about a new opposing viewpoint, you are providing supporting reasons and details for why that particular viewpoint is logical.  Are you well acquainted with thesis paper writing?  If not, you may want to read the "Basics" section of the "Thesis Writing" chapter, or at least the "Starting" part of it.  Much of the advice that is there will work well when you write a dialogic paper, as both are forms of argument.   You can brainstorm by writing down a long list of subjects or arguments and then choosing one.  Simply let out your thoughts and feelings about it on paper, or if you are more comfortable outlining, then write an outline.  If you're stuck for ideas, you also can write down outrageous or silly ideas; then choose one that you can turn into something actually useful.  You also can practice imaging.  Stretch, then sit back, relax, breathe, clear your mind, and hold an image of what a dialogic argument, a debate, or even a court case reminds you of for a few minutes. Then ask yourself, "What ideas does this image bring to mind?" and write about both the image and its results. The style, tone, and voice you use in your early drafting can, of course, be anything you want.  However, if you are the type of person who writes early drafts better if you know what tone of voice to use, then for a dialogic argument you should choose a tone--as in most academic papers--of confidence, fairness, and logical thought.  You also should avoid sounding like you dislike or hate anyone opposing you, or that you think such people are crazy.  Sound fair, strictly logical, and even, if you wish, caring. The style you use should be academic by the time you get to your final draft.  In your first draft, you may state or describe each of the positions in any way you wish.  However, by the time you finish your final draft, you should state each position in an objective way, never stating (except possibly in the conclusion) which position is your own.  That is, you should write something like "Those who oppose this issue believe that....  They think that....  They say that...," etc.  Some students feel more comfortable using such language in their first drafts: it helps them write more easily about opinions that are not their own.   In addition, it is important to rough draft all of your opposing positions relatively equally.  Of major importance in writing this kind of paper is full exploration of differing viewpoints.  For this reason, you eventually should develop about the same number of supports and details for each of the positions you describe.  Rough draft them ahead of time to be sure you have something to say.  If you can't, then brainstorm how to do more, be sure that you can find more through research, or choose different positions or even a different subject.   Some essays require use of your own experiences.  If you must develop one or more of your dialogic positions from your own personal experience, see also "Developing a Personal-Experience Essay." Also be sure--as you build your paper--that you have plenty of quotations and/or paraphrases from your research sources so that the reader can see exactly how you are supporting your thinking. Because you, yourself, are not a professional expert, you are depending--in a research paper--on quotations and paraphrases from the professional experts.  --- Return to top.           What Are Some Organizing Methods?    When organizing a dialogic/dialectic paper, you may want to consider three practical matters.  Be aware of (1) the typical visual/textual design, (2) the central key to organizing this type of paper, and (3) dangers to avoid.  General principles of organization are described in detail in the "Organizing" chapter.  Specific details for this type of paper are below.   The "Introduction" has already shown you the following organization for a dialogic/dialectic:     The Visual Plan or Map Unique Title        Intro Paragraph: MAIN SUBJECT,  3-4 opposing arguments, & introductory details       Body Section 1: An argument and supporting details Body Section 2: Its opposing argument and supporting details Body Section 3: A compromise or higher position and supporting details (Optional Body Section 4: another compromise or higher position and supporting details)       Concluding Paragraph: MAIN SUBJECT and concluding details       Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al.                              Here is a more detailed view of this structure.  This view is a visual and textual plan of how a dialogic paper generally looks when it is finished.           More Detailed Visual Plan or Map Unique Title*       Introduction**                      CENTRAL SUBJECT OR QUESTION, a quotation or other detail highlighting the subject's importance, a statement of the type of paper you are writing, & a sentence stating your 3-4 opposing viewpoints [1 par.]       Subtitle Showing First Argument***           First opposing argument: topic sentence; two or more supporting reasons, each with explanation and supporting details  [2+ par.]    Subtitle Showing Second Argument           Second opposing argument: topic sentence; two or more supporting reasons, each with explanation and supporting details  [2+ par.]  (Optional Subtitle Showing Third Argument)           (Optional Third opposing argument: topic sentence; two or more supporting reasons, each with explanation and supporting details  [2+ par.]  Subtitle Showing Final Argument           Final argument showing a compromise or higher resolution: topic sentence; two or more supporting reasons, each with explanation and supporting details  [2+ par.]        Conclusion               CENTRAL ARGUMENT/SUBJECT and final result/outcome/statement  [1 par.]       Works Cited/References/Bibliography Jones, A.J. Book One, et al. Smith, B.K. Book Two, et al. Create an alphabetized bibliography on a separate page, according to the requirements of your discipline/instructor.  Formats vary among differing disciplines.  (See the chapter in Section G. "Quoting/Paraphrasing" for more detail.) --- The Key to Building a Dialogic Argument: Representing Extremes    The key to the overall organization of a dialogic argument is to start with the basic structure of a simple debate: not just any debate, but one that includes representative extremes.  That is, you probably will find it helpful to consider the extremes of belief about the subject you choose.  Many students when they start a dialogic argument develop one viewpoint well; then, however, they have trouble choosing another viewpoint that opposes the first one.  Part of the problem is that they start with their compromise position.  Instead, often the easiest way to develop a dialogic essay is to organize it based on two extremes of belief about a subject.  For example, if your subject is suicide (or "Is suicide acceptable?"), you probably should start with these two extremes or absolutes:  Suicide is absolutely wrong. vs. Suicide is always allowable.   Notice that these two extremes are about as far apart as two human beings can be on this topic and still be considered reasonable.  One could not say, for example, on the left-hand side, "Those who think about suicide should be locked in jail" or, on the right-hand side, "Everybody should consider suicide."  Both are illogical--they do not represent realistic viewpoints.  The two viewpoints above, left and right, are about as extreme as possible while remaining within the bounds of rational thought. Once you have chosen two reasonably extreme beliefs concerning your subject, you then have plenty of room in the middle for a compromise of some kind.  Often (though not always) in student writing, the compromise represents the student's own position.  Often, too (though again not always), the compromise is similar to public law or public policy. Suicide is absolutely wrong. Suicide should be against the law, but those who attempt it and fail should get treatment, not  punishment. Suicide is always allowable. Generally, the opposing viewpoints should be presented first.  The compromise or higher resolution is offered last.  The result would be as follows, using the example above:  Is suicide acceptable? Some people argue that it is always wrong. Others argue that it should always be allowable. A compromise position is that suicide should be illegal, but those who attempt it seriously should get treatment, not punishment. The compromise should not simply be a choice between one of other opposing viewpoints (and should not be mostly one opposing viewpoint): that is repetitious and incomplete.  One of the most important elements in creating a compromise is to truly take parts from each of the opposing viewpoints and develop all these parts in a new middle ground.  If you are having trouble doing so, ask your instructor or a writing tutor for help.    What is the difference between a "compromise" and a "higher resolution"?  A higher resolution is simply a new or different idea that is brought in, something that does not merely compromise but offers an entirely different solution.  For example, a higher resolution for the suicide argument above might be as follows:   ...3. A potential resolution of this issue may lie in the hope, as some scientists think, that we can get rid of the emotional causes of suicide by improvements in psychiatric drugs or even gene therapy. (See "Other Processes" in "Advanced Methods" for further discussion of "higher resolution.") Another important step in organizing (and in revising) is to make sure that you have sufficiently developed each section.  As mentioned above, each section should be treated with respect toward those who take the position in that section, and part of this respect includes developing each viewpoint fully with approximately as many supporting reasons and details as in other sections.    Remember also to develop paragraphs that contain  quotations, paraphrases, story and event examples, numbers, figures, and/or other specific proofs.  Use the writing from your first draft--your brainstorming draft--and develop it further, adding and reorganizing as you go.  To see how to develop each paragraph individually, see the "Paragraphing" chapter in the "Revising and Editing" section. --- Dangers to Avoid as You Organize There are several dangers to avoid as you write a dialogic argument.  One of the dangers is, as mentioned twice above, is failure to have full development due to your lack of knowledge of the subject.  If this is the case, simply  research your subject more.   Another danger is lack of development because of a strong distaste for an opposing viewpoint.  It is good practice in being fair and logical for you to learn to break through such distaste by learning to represent a viewpoint opposing yours fully and completely.  However, if this is not possible--if your dislike of the opposing argument is so strong that you cannot  stand to work with it, then you may need to choose a different subject.  If you cannot do this, then try rephrasing the two opposing arguments in a slightly different way: e.g., instead of starting with "War is good" and "War is bad," try using "Killing in self-defense is good" and "Killing in self-defense is wrong." A third danger is a poor or inadequate compromise.  As mentioned previously, you cannot simply choose one of your first two opposing arguments as your final compromise.  Your compromise must be something that truly is a half-way point (or close to it) between the two opposing arguments.  If you are having trouble developing a strong, original compromise, recheck your first two opposing arguments: it is possible that they are not sufficiently extreme.  It is possible, in fact, that one of them is your compromise position. If this is so, then you need to make a more extreme position for your first or second argument.  To do so, ask yourself, "What would someone who positions herself further to the left (or right) believe?"  Ask others to help you, too: your instructor, a tutor in your school's tutoring center, or a librarian.  (If your issue is a public or political one, your librarians may have an excellent sense of the extremes of belief that are considered rational.  Simply ask for help by explaining your assignment and your problem.) ----- As you complete your later drafts, look carefully at the visual map above and the sample papers in this chapter.  Rearrange the order of your body sections and of your paragraphs as needed.  Consider your use of major organizing devices: for example, have you placed the correct key sentences in your introduction and conclusion, and have you developed a subtitle and topic sentence at the beginning of each major body section?                                    Asterisks *, **, and *** for the organizational plan or map above (advice given in most chapters): *In most academic disciplines, the title is typed simply: no quotation marks, underlining, or bold marking.  It is centered, and the font size and style are those used in the rest of the paper--normally a 12-point font in a style such as Times New Roman, Garamond, or CG Times.  In a professional situation, you may use academic style or whatever is commonly acceptable in your workplace. ** In some disciplines, the "Introduction" subtitle may be optional or even forbidden.  (Most social sciences and psychology papers, for example, should not have an "Introduction" subtitle.)  ***Some instructors--and some types of papers or disciplines--require a short summary (see) of a text  before you begin responding to it.  Ask your instructor.  Such a summary generally should have no quotations within it and should be fair and balanced (even if the text is not).          ***Some instructors may allow--or even, occasionally, prefer--your paper to be completely free of subtitles.  (Some literature, history, and philosophy instructors, for example, consider subtitles inappropriate.)  If you use no subtitles at all, consider using an extra space break at the beginning of each body section and/or an especially strong, clear topic sentence.  In addition, some instructors may prefer you to have a series of more than four body sections.  If so, pay attention especially to the paper's flow by using good transitions. For more about organizing body sections, topic sentences, and subtitles in general, please go to "Organizing College Papers."  For more about organizing paragraphs, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter. --- Return to top.        Are There Special Revising and Editing Needs?    In revising a dialogic/dialectic, the focus techniques with which you started in the Introduction to this chapter also can help you finish your paper:     FOUR FOCUSES FOR REVISING: Subject, Drafts, Style, & Authenticity [NOTE: SOME OF THESE HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY INDIVIDUALIZED, SO FIX/CHANGE AS NEEDED:] SUBJECT: Have you stayed on the subject throughout?  In a dialogic argument, this means two things.  First, it means being sure that you have represented the real opposing sides of an issue, and you have developed a real compromise or higher resolution--arguments that seem logical not just to you, but also to your readers.  Second, staying on the subject means that within each body section, you have given strong, logical reasons and supporting details that show why the argument in that section is considered true by those who believe it.  In other words, each body section must be like a well developed mini-thesis paper.   Be sure, in addition, to introduce, explain, or connect each quotation at least briefly (see the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter in the "Researching" section) to the content of your discussion.  Have you also considered what kind of problem the author of your text presents and how each theory or viewpoint you use represents some kind of solution?  Can you help your readers perceive it in this way?   FIRST & SECOND DRAFTS: Have you used all of the needed steps to write and revise your drafts? Free-write: after you have added quotations, try reading your paper aloud to see if it is choppy or has missing ideas.  If either is the case, trying rewriting the choppy parts freely, without copying what you've already written, or freewriting new paragraphs to complete your missing ideas. (To help cure choppy sentences, see "Using Mixed-Length Sentences" in "Editing.")  For general freewriting, see "How to Start First Drafts.")   Gather details: Do you have sufficient details?  The typical dialogic argument often has, depending on your assignment, several supporting details per page: e.g., quotations, paraphrases, and/or well developed story examples.  Are your details specific and concrete?  If they are quotations or paraphrases, their content should clearly go to the heart of what you are saying, and you should, if necessary, help the reader after each one by explaining what it means and how it fits with what you are saying.  If you are writing story examples, they should be detailed, using the five W's of journalism and the five senses of storytelling.  You also should, if possible, place your very best two quotations and/or stories--those that define the overall subject or question, not just one argument in it--into the introduction and conclusion.  For reader appeal, your first section--your first opposing argument--preferably will be the one with the most compelling details or those that present the reader with the most compelling problem or sense of tension.  And your final body section will, in its very nature as a compromise or higher resolution, have some of your strongest details, as well.  If research is required, see the "Research" section. Write for your audience: Have you developed a visual image of your audience?  For a dialogic argument, your primary audience is your instructor.  However, you also can imagine your class--or a class at the next higher level--as your audience, and develop a visual image of the entire class or of one intelligent member in the group.  As a dialogic argument is a written version of a debate, you can imagine you are viewing a debate as you write it or that you are one person in a two- or three-way debate, or you can imagine playing all three roles before your audience.  It also is helpful if you can find an opportunity to read your paper aloud to a student who is a member of your imaginary audience.  As you do so, ask yourself, "What wording, organization, or details sound like they should be changed?"     Organize: Have you finished all parts of the organizational pattern, placing all first-draft writing and later additions into the best place possible? A dialogic argument also should have good transitions to help move readers between the several main arguments you use, and in each section, from each supporting reason to explanation of it and to its supporting details.  Good transitions become especially important because of the complex interweaving of all these different types of thought: the transitions act as road maps through the byways of your essay.  A dialogic argument may have a brief background section; however, such a section should be just a few paragraphs at most and should not be a substitute for strong, thorough development of each section.  Often it is possible to place most background information in individual paragraphs or body sections as needed.  Also, consider the length of your introduction ad conclusion: their length should not be excessive.  In short papers, usually a paragraph is enough.  If you find your introduction continues on at great length, you are writing your body sections in the introduction.  Simply move large parts of this material into the appropriate body sections.   Problem Solving (Critical Thinking): Most papers represent all or part of what is called a "problem-solving process."  In its simplest form, it involves (1) a problem, (2) one or more solutions, and (3) a method of reaching the solution.  Which of these three does your paper exemplify?  Which could you add to improve the paper?  A dialogic essay is, by its very nature, a problem (a question) with three or four possible answers.  What is the main problem or question represented in your paper?  Have you stated this clearly in the introduction and the conclusion?  Does each of your answers really offer a typical or publicly acceptable or reasonable answer to the problem? Do your supporting reasons for each argument help show in more detail how that argument is a solution?   Research: iF you need to support your points and/or others' points with research, do you have a sufficient number of high-quality sources?  Have you fully integrated them with your paper by adding quotations and/or paraphrases from them?  If you are using non-print sources such as interviews, videos, or television, will they be considered appropriate and representative (well representing a viewpoint or theory) by your audience?  If you are using online sources, have you checked them carefully to verify their quality and accuracy (see "Evaluating Web Sites" in OnlineGrammar.org)? STYLE & TONE: The tone or voice in a dialogic argument should be one of balance, fairness, and logic.  As part of your style, refer to the "believer" of each argument frequently in the argument so that readers know you are not speaking of your own beliefs, but rather of a particular group's.  In other words, write phrases every paragraph or two like "Some people believe," "this group argues that," "This argument suggests that," and " "Those who support this belief think that."  For tone or voice, try reading your dialogic argument aloud--or have a friend read it aloud to you--so you can hear whether your sentences sound as you want them to. AUTHENTICITY: Have you tried to go to the heart of the matter you are discussing? Is there some way in which you can make your paper more authentic--more real and original to yourself, your content, or your audience?  In a dialogic argument, you can establish personal authenticity by adding story examples from your own experience or by quoting someone you have personally interviewed who is an expert by virtue of their experience, education, or training.  You can establish authenticity toward your audience by making every effort to be as fair, balanced, and respectful of each argument you present, and to make it constantly clear to your audience that you are not speaking of your own beliefs, but rather of a group's beliefs (e.g., "Some people believe that," as described above).  You can establish authenticity of content by finding the very heart of each argument as it is made by those who deeply believe it, and by then writing simply, directly, and clearly about that heart.             --- Final Advice Given in Most Chapters For specific, line-by-line editing, your paper needs proper development of both your particular points that you are making and points or places in the text to which you are referring.  In other words, you need to explain not only yourself, but also your sources/readings.  Your sources/readings must be absolutely clear to your reader in a fair, balanced, logical way.  You must, therefore, not just use quotations and paraphrases.  You also explain them.  (See the "Quoting & Paraphrasing" chapter for how to do this.)  Remember that the typical quotation should, in many disciplines, have a statement of a source--a name or title--at its beginning; and, after it, there should be a page number (if the source is printed).  The typical paraphrase should have a source--a name or title--either before or after it, along with a page number (if any) afterwards.  In addition, quotations, paraphrases, and stories should not just be tossed into your paper: rather, they should be introduced by having a statement before and/or after each of its connection to what you are saying.  In most papers, you should use the third-person pronoun: "he," "she," "it," and "they."  You should not use "you" unless you are giving directions, or writing a diary or personal reflection, or a less formal magazine or newsletter article or other specific advice (as in this chapter).  In most formal writing situations, instructors and supervisors also often dislike the use "I" at any time (unless you are referring to yourself in a story example).  However, some forms of academic and professional writing--especially if a specific instructor or supervisor allows it--are starting to allow the use of the "I" pronoun.  If in doubt, ask your instructor or supervisor. Paragraphing in most academic papers follows some relatively standard guidelines.  You are working with a lot of information when you write a formal paper.  For this reason, clear, consistent paragraphing becomes even more important.  Your paragraphs should help you logically divide your body sections into smaller sub-parts, ideas, or sub-ideas--just for the sake of clarity and ease of reading, if for no other reason.  Also, generally, for a short- to medium-length paper, you should have one paragraph each for your introduction, conclusion, and--if you have it--your summary.  You should, as a matter of habit, have at least two or three paragraphs per page in your final draft.  On the other hand, be careful not to have too many paragraphs per page.  If you have a lot of short, choppy paragraphs, combine them.  The goal, graphically speaking, is to provide your audience with a variety of paragraph lengths--an occasional short one for emphasis or change of pace added to a mix of varying medium and long paragraphs.  The goal in terms of content is to make your ideas flow so well that your audience can easily keep them clear and separate without ever even noticing your paragraphing (or, for that matter, any other mechanical aspect of your paper).  For more advice, go to the "Paragraphing" chapter.   Several other common, useful strategies of efficient, thorough editing are in the several chapters of the "Revising and Editing" section.  Some of these strategies also are summarized in the following very-brief web page:   Very Brief Review of How to Edit Your Final Draft --- Good luck with your writing of this type of paper.  For more advanced and/or interesting information on this type of paper, please see the "Advanced" section of the chapter. --- Return to top.