Methods for rational strengthening of argumentation in the written discourse of human sciences (description and evaluation)


The article presents the results of a descriptive and normative analysis of the problem of rationalising of humanitarian argumentative practice. Based on the material of Russian and Belarusian language texts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, methods of intensifying rational influence in the written discourse of the humanities are identified and systematised. The means of rational strengthening of argumentation are differentiated at three levels of discourse analysis: structural, representational, and metatextual. It has been established that the methods of structural strengthening are: systematisation of presentation; the use of complex argumentative structures; the use of special methods of structuring the argumentation (repetition, gradation, period). It is shown that the representational strengthening of argumentation is carried out verbally and non-verbally. Verbal methods are the following: logical-semantic accentuation (linguistic marking of the constituents of argumentation, its forms, schemes, structures; logical accents using language intensifiers; introduction of means of intellectual assessment into discourse). Non-verbal intensification is carried out due to various forms of visualisation (tables, diagrams, graphs, drawings, photographs, etc.). It is noted that metatextual rationalisation occurs with the help of typographic means (font variation, underlining, different types of brackets, symbolic designations, vertical and horisontal spaces, etc.). The influencing effect of these techniques is explained by their ability to present systematically argumentative content, as well as to form a rational aesthetics of a scientific product that meets the expectations of the perceiving subject of written humanitarian discourse. It is emphasised that the conditions for the effectiveness of multi-level means of rationalisation are determined by their typological affiliation and that the objectivity of their critical analysis involves taking into account a wide context and situational factors. It is concluded that the cooperation of the author of the article and the editorial office of the scientific publication plays a significant role in enhancing the argumentative impact of a scientific publication.

Author Biography

Tatiana N. Savtchouk, Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

doctor of science (philology), docent; professor at the department of applied linguistics, faculty of philology


  1. Blair JA. Argumentation as Rational Persuasion. Argumentation. 2012;26(1):71–81. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9235-6.
  2. van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Krabbe ECW, Snoeck Henkemans AF, Verheij B, Wagemans JHM. Argumentation theory. In: van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Krabbe ECW, Snoeck Henkemans AF, Verheij B, Wagemans JHM. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. p. 1–49. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5.
  3. Savtchouk TN. Argumentaciya v russko- i belorusskoyazychnom nauchno-gumanitarnom diskurse [Argumentation in the Russian and Belarusian language scientific and humanitarian discourse]. Minsk: Belarusian State University; 2018. 279 p. Russian.
  4. Hazagerov GG. The meaninglessness of scientific discourse as an objective process. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal. 2010;2:5–21. Russian.
  5. Belyaeva LN, Shubina NL. Scientific article as an object of peer review. Izvestiya Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta imeni A. I. Gertsena. 2014;172:5–12. Russian.
  6. Schernyavskaya VE. Research article as a verbalization of a new scientific result (based on linguistics). Zhanry rechi. 2016;1:56–64. Russian. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2016-1-13-56-64.
  7. Rezanova ZI, Kogut SV. Functioning of discourse markers in a scientific text: ethnocultural and discursive determinations. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya. 2016;1(39):62–79. Russian. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/39/6.
  8. Kotyurova MP. On the model «quality of scientific text» (to clarify the concept of «consistency – psychological»). Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya. Humanitates. 2019;5(1):6–15. Russian. DOI: 10.21684/2411-197X-2019-5-1-6-15.
  9. Kotyurova MP, Bazhenova EA. Particles-discourses in the aspect of critical thinking of a journalist. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya. 2020;64:63–75. Russian. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/64/5.
  10. Shcherbin VK. Memetics as a new interdisciplinary science and the branch of social semiotics. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2019;4:40–47. Russian.
  11. Baranov AN, Parshin PB. [Influence capability of variation in the field of metagraphemics]. In: Berezin FM, Bezmenova NA, Luzina LG, compilers. Problemy effektivnosti rechevoy kommunikatsii [Problems of the effectiveness of speech communication]. Moscow: INION; 1989. p. 41–115. Russian.
  12. Baranov AN, Parshin PB. Towards the metalanguage for describing text vizualizations. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2, Yazykoznanie. 2018;17(3):6–15. Russian. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.3.1.
  13. Shubina NL, Antoshinceva MA. Vspomogatel’nye semioticheskie sistemy v ustnoi i pis’mennoi kommunikatsii [Auxiliary semiotic systems in oral and written communication]. Saint Petersburg: PetroPress; 2005. 291 p. Russian.
  14. Shubina NL. Text’s non-verbal semiotics: field of linguistic knowledge. Izvestiya Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta imeni A. I. Gercena. Seriya «Obshchestvennye i gumanitarnye nauki». 2009;97:184–192. Russian.
  15. Blair JA. Probative norms for multimodal visual arguments. Argumentation. 2015;29:217–233. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-014-9333-3.
  16. Godden D. Images as arguments: progress and problems, a brief commentary. Argumentation. 2015;29:235–238. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9345-7.
  17. Groarke L. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation. 2015;29:133–155. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0.
  18. Ivin AA. Logika [Logic]. Moscow: FAIR-PRESS; 2001. 320 p. Russian.
  19. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1992. 236 p.
  20. Savtchouk TN. Special techniques for structuring argumentation in the discourse of the humanities. In: Kurash SB, editor. Tekst. Yazyk. Chelovek [Text. Language. Human]. Mozyr: Mozyr State Pedagogical University named after I. P. Shamyakin; 2019. p. 185–189. Russian.
  21. Shakhovskii VI. Kategorizatsiya emotsii v leksiko-semanticheskoi sisteme yazyka [Categorisation of emotions in the lexicalsemantic system of the language]. Moscow: URSS; 2009. 204 р. Co-published by the «Librokom». Russian.
Keywords: argumentation, rational impact, argumentative structure, argumentative verbaliser, written scientific communication, discourse of the humanities
How to Cite
Savtchouk T. N. Methods for rational strengthening of argumentation in the written discourse of human sciences (description and evaluation) // Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology. 2022. 1. PP. 16-29.