The theoretical status of the phenomenon of argumentation

Authors

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

Keywords:

argumentation, reasoning, persuasion, rationality, argumentative discourse, cognitive category

Abstract

 

The article is devoted to the explication of the theoretical status of the phenomenon of argumentation. For this purpose, the ways of understanding the concept «argumentation» presented in the scientific literature are being systematized. It is noted that the uncertainty of the semantic and objective meanings of the key concept of argumentology hinders the creation of a reliable theoretical model. The author analyzes three main approaches to the interpretation of the term «argumentation». They focus on different sides of this research object, treating argumentation as a special type of reasoning, as a communicative practice (discourse) or as a cognitive category. Taking into account such interpretations, the author explicates essential features of argumentation and formulates the definition of this notion. The definition characterizes argumentation both as a concept, as a process, and as a product. It is concluded that such a multidimensional understanding of argumentation makes it possible to investigate this phenomenon comprehensively in different types of social and communicative practices and is a precondition for the creation of a convergent theory oriented both at the description and critical analysis of argumentative discourse.

Author Biography

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

    PhD (philology), docent; associate professor at the department of applied linguistics, faculty of philology

References

  1. Savtchouk T. N. Conceptual system of argumentation theory: problems of formation. J. Belarus. State Univ. Philol. 2017. No. 1. P. 51–57 (in Russ.).
  2. Gerasimova I. A. The phenomenon of argumentation. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki [Epistemology and philosophy of science]. 2009. No. 3. P. 5–13 (in Russ.).
  3. Kryuchkova S. E., Hrapov S. A. [Argumentative discourse in the communicative space of modern culture: problems of theory]. URL: http://www.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=23106 (date of access: 15.08.2017) (in Russ.).
  4. Brutyan G. A. Argumentatsiya [Argumentation]. Yerevan : Publ. house of the Acad. of Sci. of Armen. SSR, 1984 (in Russ.).
  5. Starchenko A. A., Bovao Sh. Z. [To the question of the scientific status of the argumentationtheory]. Vestnik Mosk. univ. Ser. 7, Filosofiya [Science journal of Moscow University. Series 7, Philosophy]. 1985. No. 5. P. 14–20 (in Russ.).
  6. Blinov A. A., Petrov V. V. [Discourse acts and theargumentation theory]. In: Filosofskie problemy argumentatsii [Philosophical problems of argumentation]. Yerevan : Publ. house of Acad. of Sci. of Armen. SSR, 1986. P. 356 –367 (in Russ.).
  7. Yaskevitch Y. S. [Structure and dynamics of reasoning in science] : diss. abstr. … dr. of sci. (philos.). Minsk, 1992 (in Russ.).
  8. Alekseev А. P. Filosofskii tekst: idei, argumentatsiya, obrazy [Philosophical text: ideas, arguments, images]. Moscow : Progress-Traditsiya, 2006 (in Russ.).
  9. Kislov A. G. [Argumentation]. In: Sovremennyi filosofskii slovar’ [Modern philosophical dictionary]. Moscow, 2004. P. 61–62 (in Russ.).
  10. Blair J. A. Argumentation as Rational Persuasion. Argumentation. 2012. Vol. 26, No 1. P. 71–81.
  11. Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Krabbe E., et. al. Argumentation Theory. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht : Springer, 2014. P. 1–50.
  12. Ivin A. A. Osnovy teorii argumentatsii [The basis of the argumentation theory]. Moscow : Gumanit. izd. tsentr VLADOS, 1997 (in Russ.).
  13. Gerasimova I. A., Novoselov M. M. Argumentation as a methodology of persuasion. Vopr. filosofii [Questions of philosophy]. 2003. No. 10. P. 72–84 (in Russ.).
  14. Grinenko G. V. [Argumentation and communication]. In: Mysl’ i iskusstvo argumentatsii [Thought and art of reasoning]. Мoscow, 2003. P. 58–90 (in Russ.).
  15. Ruzavin G. I. [Argumentation]. In: Filosofskii slovar’ [Philosophical dictionary]. Мoscow, 2001. P. 42 (in Russ.).
  16. Shuman A. N. Sovremennaya logika [Modern Logic]. Minsk : Ekonompress, 2004 (in Russ.).
  17. Vasil’ev L. G. [Linguistic Aspects of Understanding] : thesis of diss. … dr. of sci. (philol.). Kaluga, 1999 (in Russ.).
  18. Aristotel’. [Rhetoric]. In: Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient rhetorics]. Мoscow, 1978. P. 13–164 (in Russ.).
  19. Weigand E. Argumentation: the Mixed Game. Argumentation. 2006. Vol. 20, No. 1. P. 59–87.
  20. Prigarina N. K. [Argumentation of judicial defensive speech: rhetorical model] : diss. abstr. … dr. of sci. (philol.). Volgograd, 2010 (in Russ.).
  21. Volkov A. A. Teoriya ritoricheskoi argumentatsii [Theory of rhetorical argumentation]. Мoscow : Dobrosvet : KDU, 2013 (in Russ.).
  22. Savtchouk T. N. [Prove – is to convince?]. Russ. yazyk i lit. [Russian language and literature]. 2010. No. 4. P. 9–19 (in Russ.).
  23. Brutyan G. A. Ocherk teorii argumentatsii [Out line of the argumentation theory]. Yerevan : Publ. house of the Acad. of Sci. of Armenia, 1992 (in Russ.).
  24. O’Keefe D. J. Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence. Argumentation. 2012. Vol. 26, No. 1. P. 19–32.
  25. Markovich A. A. [Argumentative Communication]. In: Metodologiya issledovanii politicheskogo diskursa [Methodology of political discourse research]. Minsk, 2000. Issue 2. P. 412–421 (in Russ.).
  26. Dem’jankov V. Z. [Conventions, rules and communication strategies (interpretative approach to argumentation)]. Izv. Akad. nauk SSSR. Ser. lit. i yazyka. [Procedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series of literature and language]. 1982. Vol. 41. P. 327–337 (in Russ.).
  27. Vazhneishie kontseptsii teorii argumentatsii [Crucial concepts in argumentation theory]. Saint Petersburg : Filol. fac., Saint Petersburg Univ., 2006 (in Russ.).
  28. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: a Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed toward Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin : De Gruyter ; Dordrecht : Foris, 1984.
  29. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum, 1992.
  30. Baranov A. N., Sergeev V. M. [Linguistic-pragmatic mechanisms of argumentation]. In: Ratsional’nost’, rassuzhdenie, kommunikatsiya (logiko-metodologicheskii analiz) [Rationality, reasoning, communication (logical-methodological analysis)]. Kiev, 1987. P. 21– 41 (in Russ.).
  31. Baranov A. N. [Argumentation as a linguistic and cognitive phenomenon]. In: Rechevoe vozdeistvie v sfere massovoi kommunikatsii [Speech impact in the sphere of mass communication]. Moscow, 1990. P. 40–52 (in Russ.).
  32. Shpranc-Fogashi T. [Argumentation as an interactive resource]. Vestnik Mosk. univ. Ser. 9, Filologiya [Science journal of Moscow University. Series 9, Philology]. 2003. No. 4. P.129–143 (in Russ.).
  33. Fanyan N. Y. Argumentation as a linguopragmatic structure : diss. … dr. of sci. (philol.). Krasnodar, 2000 (in Russ.).
  34. O’Keefe D. J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publ. 2002.
  35. Kontseptual’naya sistematika argumentatsii [Conceptual systematics of argumentation] : 10.02.19. Moscow : Flinta : Nauka, 2017 (in Russ.).
  36. Blakar R. [Language as an instrument of social power]. In: Yazyk i modelirovanie sotsial’nogo vzaimodeistviya [Language and modeling of social interaction]. Moscow, 1987. P. 88–125 (in Russ.).

Downloads

Published

2019-03-01

Issue

No. 2 (2018): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology

Section

Linguistics

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Savtchouk, T.N. 2019. The theoretical status of the phenomenon of argumentation. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philology. 2 (Mar. 2019), 123–130.