All the elements of speech and language come together in conversation. We could make a similar comparison to spellcasting and duelling. 

Now is the time to put everything together and reflect on what we’ve learned. Below is a transcript of some famous wizarding duels. As we review the turns, we will be able to see where the elements of our research fit into real world applications.

As discussed in the pragmatics chapter, every spell is assoiciated with some kind of action. In dueling we categorise these three ways with the following symbols.

1. Aggressive-Direct [/] action against opponent


2. Aggresive-Indirect [\] action on other object or force, can be used defensively as well.


3. Defensive [)]

*Chained spells are annoated as [>]

In a competition duel setting, each duelist will use various combinations of these actions in an attempt to best their opponent and land a strike. It is impossible to attack and defend simultaneously, so duelists alternate or parry each other's attacks; taking turns much like a conversation. By using the magical energy and momentum of your opponent's attack, casting is easier and more effective.

Let us first look at a well documented duel between Severus Snape versus Minerva McGonagall during the Second Wizarding War.

Minvera: /wand slash/ aggressive manouever

Severus: (shield charm) deflect attack

Minerva: /descending flames/ <ring of fire that filled the corridor> /fire lasso/

Severus: /lasso/ > \black serpent\

Minverva: \serpent\ > (\smoke\) > /swarm of daggers/

Severus: (\locomotor suit of armour\)

Flitwick: /animate suit of armour/

Severus: /fling suit of armour/ towards enemies in order to escape

In a competitive duel context, Minvera would have cast the greater number of offensive spells which would make her the clear winner, but in real life scenarios it is rarely this easy.

Minerva dominated the duel based on the number of attacks, but Severus had more turns even though they were nearly exclusively defensive. This gives us better insight into what objective the duelists may have had during their encounter.

Minerva consistently favours aggressive attacks which suggests her aim was to hurt or kill Severus Snape.

Snape, however makes very little effort to attack Minerva, even when presented with ample opportunity. Once could argue that he may not have had the skill or the time to properly attack, as he was also outnumbered, but Severus is an accomplished wizard with multiple novel charms to his name. While he was not a champion duelist, he was certainly qualified to instruct Defense Against the Dark Arts in addition to being a trusted insider for the Death Easters and a loyal agent to Albus Dumbledore. This level of competence would have justified the necessarily skill to deliver at least one offensive spell.

His clearest opportunity is at his second turn when he descalates the duel by turning the fire lasso into a black serpent made from smoke. As his only offensive move, he could have used the progressive energy to make something more lethal and damaging. Instead he extinguishes the fire, and summons a stalking predator. I believe this gives us a better indication of Snapes intentions during the duel. Not necessarily to do harm, but rather not die.

From this posture, we can determine who effectively won, by determining if their goal or intention was met. If Minerva's objective was to kill Severus Snape, she failed. If Severus' Snape's objective was to not die, then he succeeded.

Let us compare this to the duel between Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort.

Dumbledore: \Pierum Locomotor\ on Fountain of Magical Brethren *multiple defensive intentions (to protect Harry immobilise Bellatrix, and warn important Ministry officials)

Voldemort: Apparate

Voldemort: /Non-verbal spell/

Dumbledore: (Apparate dodge)

Dumbledore /Non-verbal spell/

Voldemort: /Non-verbal spell/

Bellatrix: \attempt move\

Dumbledore: \Bombarda\ to shatter piece of the fountain (to pin down and immobilise Bellatrix)

Voldemort: /Non-verbal spell/ (miss)

Dumbledore: /Non-verball spell/

Voldemort: (Protego Maxima)

Voldemort: /Avada Kedavra/

Dumbledore: \Pierum Locomotor\ on centaur statue

Dumbledore /fiery rope/

Voldemort: \rope\ > /serpensortia/

Voldemort: disapparated > apparated

Voldemort: /Avada Kedavra/

Fawkes: absorbed the curse and burst into flames, 

Dumbledore: \Wingardium Leviosa\ on water from the fountain to surround Voldemort

Voldemort: (Apparate) failed*

Voldemort: \Legilimens\ on harry

Dumbledore: (Occlumancy) ejected from harry and

Voldemort: (Disapparates)

From this exchange we learn a number of things. The duel itself in much more aggressive in nature, with each person subsequently using a defensive and offensive turn, but we also see it become less direct over time. This could be because their objective or goal changes throughout the duel as they acquire more information.

For example, Voldemort uses the spell Avada Kedavra multiple times so his intentions seem very clear. While Dumbledore uses an indirect cast from the very beginning to provide a defensive stance even while casting offensive charms. I believe this suggests that Dumbledore holds multiple objectives for the duel and alot of that has to do with the presence of Harry.
The objective for both becomes very clear in the final few turns. After being swallowed up in a ball of water, Voldemort possesses Harry as a way to taunt and distract Dumbledore. This works because Dumbledore's primary objective is to protect Harry; subduing Voldemort is secondary to that objective.

Now why doesn't Voldemort seize the opportunity to attack Dumbledore while he is distracted? I believe this is because Voldemort also has multiple objectives. Voldemort wants to kill Harry, but he also knows that he can't without first dispatching of Dumbledore. This explains the earlier part of the duel. Once he realises that he can't defeat Dumbledore head on, he has to change tactics and simply try to escape which is why he turns to possessing Harry only toward the end of the duel.

Notice that in the analysis of this discourse, the two dueling partners do not share the same objective, and failing to defeat your opponent does not mean that you are defeated.