The Semiosphere of Argumentation as Speech and Thought Activity
- Autores: Kostyushkina G.M.1, Sverdlova N.A.1, Mariasova E.P.1
-
Afiliações:
- Irkutsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Edição: Volume 20, Nº 1 (2023)
- Páginas: 168-178
- Seção: Polylingual Texts
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2618-897X/article/view/326724
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2618-897X-2023-20-1-168-178
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VFFRYB
- ID: 326724
Citar
Texto integral
Resumo
The systemic nature of semiosphere organization correlates with the systemic nature of argumentation as human speech and thought activity. Argumentation is a part of semiotic continuum of human speech and thinking, forming complex subsystems of semiosphere. The paper aims at constructing the semiosphere of argumentation by identifying different approaches to its study. The authors conclude that argumentation as a logical-communicative process can be reviewed most clearly when analyzed in terms of S. Toulmin’s classification from logical, dialectical, rhetorical research perspectives. The functions of persuasion and the significance of the addressee are in this case prioritized. The pragma-dialectical approach used by the authors and its integrated nature of studying of argumentation as a speechthought activity, made it possible to transfer from logics and dialectics to cognitive-oriented research. Axioms (12), underlying approaches to the study of argumentation, were analyzed and classified according to the principles of action, practice, and activity, as applied to language, which has a speech-thought-activity character. Argumentation as a component of human thinking semiosphere is the most complex phenomenon given its multidimensional and multisystemic nature.
Sobre autores
Galina Kostyushkina
Irkutsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: kostushkina@mail.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7673-2441
Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Professor, Department of Foreign languages and Philosophy
134, Str. Lermontova, Irkutsk, 664033, Russian FederationNatalia Sverdlova
Irkutsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: nsverdlova@yandex.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5315-6266
Candidate of Sciences (Philology), Associate professor, Head of the Department of Scientific, Education Activity and Expertise, Head of Department of Pedagogy and Expertise
134, Str. Lermontova, Irkutsk, 664033, Russian FederationElena Mariasova
Irkutsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Email: mariaselena@yandex.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3504-9416
Junior research assistant, Postgraduate, Department of Foreign languages and Philosophy
134, Str. Lermontova, Irkutsk, 664033, Russian FederationBibliografia
- Lotman, Y.М. 1992. Semiosfera Izbrannye stat’i v trekh tomakh. [Semiosphere Selected articles in three volumes.]. Tallin : Aleksandra publ. Vol. 1. Pp. 12–13. Print. (In Russ)
- Kolmogorova, A.V. 2006. Yazykovoe znachenie i rechevoi smysl: funktsional’nosemiologicheskoe issledovanie prilagatel’nykh-oboznachenii svetlogo i temnogo v sovremennykh russkom i frantsuzskom yazykakh [ Linguistic meaning and speech meaning: Experience of a functional semiological study of adjectives denoting light and dark in modern Russian and French]. Doctoral diss. … on Philology, Novokuznetsk. Print. (In Russ)
- Aarnio, A. 1987. “The rational as reasonable: a treatise on legal justification” Dordrecht; Boston: D. Reidel; Norwell, MA, USA.
- Austine, J.L. 1986. Slovo kak dejstvie. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. [original: How to do things with words]. Moscow: Progress. publ. No 17. P. 22 –129. Print. (In Russ)
- Searle, J.R. 1986. Klassifikatsiya illokutivnykh aktov [original: A classification of illocutionary acts]. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike.: Teoriya rechevy`x aktov. Moscow: Progress publ. No 17. Pp. 170–194. Print. (In Russ)
- Gordon, D., Lakoff G. 1971. Conversational postulates onversational. Papers from the Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society.(7):18–31.
- Stalnaker, R.C. 1985. Pragmatika. [ Pragmatics]. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. Moscow. Progress. publ. Pp. 419–438. Print. (In Russ.)
- Strawson, P.F. 1986. Namerenie i konvencija v rechevyh aktah. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike. [ Intention and Convention in Speech Acts. New in Foreign Linguistics]. Moscow: Progress. Pp. 130–150. Print. (In Russ.)
- Franck, D. 1986. Sem’ grekhov pragmatiki: tezisy o teorii rechevykh aktov, analize rechevogo obshcheniya, lingvistike i ritorike [The seven sins of pragmatics: abstracts on speech act theory, speech communication analysis, linguistics, and rhetoric]. Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Moscow. 423 p. Pp. 363–373. Print. (In Russ)
- Ducrot, O. 1996. Slovenian lectures: argumentative semantics // Conferences Slovenes / ed. by I. Ž. Žagar. Ljubljana: ISH. Pp. 241–253.
- Volkov, А.А. 2009. Teoriya ritoricheskoi argumentatsii [Theory of rhetotical argumentation]. Moscow: Moscow State University publ. 398 p. Print. (In Russ)
- Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst R., Johnson R.H., Plantin Ch., Willard Ch.A., et al., 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Gilbert, M.A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Barth, E.M., Martens J.L. 1983. Argumentation. Approaches to theory formation. Lingvisticae Investigationes. 7(1):195–195 e-journal. URL: https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/15699927/7/1 (date of access: 11.12.21.)
- Krabbe, E.C. W., van Laar J.A. 2011. The ways of Criticism. Argumentation no 25(2):199–227.
- Aristotel’ [Aristotle], 1978. Topika. Sobranie sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh. [Topica. Collected Works in Four Volumes]. Moscow: Mysl’ publ. Vol. 2. Pp. 347–531. Print. (In Russ.)
- Lorenzen, S. 1978. Postembryonalentwicklung von Steineria- und Sphaerolaimidenarten (Nematoden) und ihre Konsequenzen für die Systematik. Zool. Anz., Jena. 200 (1/2):53–78.
- Lorenz, K. 2009. Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin, Walter De Gruyter.
- Jackson, S., Jakobs S. 1982. The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation // Journal of the American Forensic Association. (18):77–90.
- Toulmin, S.E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. London, Cambridge University Press.
- Harman, G. 1986. Change in view: principles of reasoning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
- Bryushinkin, V.N. 2009. Kognitivnyi podkhod k argumentatsii. [Cognitive approach to argumentation]. Web. URL: http://www/ratio.albertina.ru./Ratio.ru/archive/20091, (date of access 2022/01/16). (In Russ)
- Ivin, A.A.: Logics. [Logika]. Web. URL: https://urait.ru/bcode/431850. (date of access 2022/01/1).
- Grinenko, G.V. 2016. Kognitivnyi dissonans v argumentatsii. Logiko-filosofskie shtudii. [Cognitive dissonance in argumentation. Logical and philosophical studies]. Logikofilosofskiye shtudii. 13 (2). Pp. 209–210. Print. (In Russ)
- Naess, A. 2005. Spinoza and the Deep Ecology Movement. The Selected Works of Arne Naess. Springer, Dordrecht, Pp. 2662–2687. Web. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/ pdf/10.1007/978-1-4020-4519-6_121.pdf. (date of access 10.10.2022).
- Apothéloz, D., Brandt, P., & Quiroz, G. 1993. The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, (19):23–38.
- Kostyushkina, G.M. 2017. Kontseptual’naya sistematika argumentatsii [Conceptual systematics of argumentation]. Moscow. Flinta-Nauka publ. Print. (In Russ).
- Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst R. 2003. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragmadialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kostyushkina, G.M., Barebina, N.S. 2017. Argumentatsiya i kontseptual’naya sistematika rechi i rechevoy deyatel’nosti. [Argumentation and conceptual systematics of speech and speech activity]. Moscow. Flinta-Nauka. publ. Pp.10–69. Print. (In Russ)
- Barebina, N.S. 2020. Argumentatsiya kritiki v nauke o yazyke (ehkolingvisticheskii aspekt). Diss. dokt. filol. nauk. [Argumentation of criticism in the science of language (ecolinguistic aspect) Dr. Sci. (Philology) thesis]. Irkutsk, Print. (In Russ)
- Lisanyuk, E.N., Hamidov A.A., 2021. Argument k neznaniyu i argument ot tishiny. [Argument to ignorance and argument from silence]. Diskurs. 7(1), Pp. 5–16. Print. (In Russ)
- Oswald, S., Herman Th.J. 2018. Argumentation and Language-Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library. Springer International Publishing. 32:1–25.
- Bryushinkin, V.N. 2007. Sistemnaya model’ argumentatsii dlya fragmenta filosofskogo teksta // Modeli rassuzhdenii [Systemic argumentation model for a fragment of a philosophical text]. Modeli rassuzhdeniy (1). Logika i argumentatsiya. Kaliningrad: Kant University publ. Pp.126–144. Print. (In Russ)
- Baranov, A.N. 1990. Argumentatsiya kak yazykovoi i kognitivnyi fenomen // Rechevoe vozdeistvie v sfere massovoi kommunikatsii [Argumentation as a linguistic and cognitive phenomenon. Speech impact in mass communication]. Nauka publ. Pp. 40–52. Print. (In Russ.)
- Perelman, C., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. 2000. Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles. Université de Bruxelles.
- Sverdlova, N.A. 2019. Germenevticheskie aspekty bilingvizma: rol’ mezh”yazykovoj interferencii [Hermeneutical aspects of bilingualism: the role of interlanguage interference]. In Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Moscow. 10(3). Pp. 602–609. Print. (In Russ)
- Barebina, N.S., Kostyushkina, G.M., Zhiyong, Fang. 2021. “Vektory argumentativnoi orientatsii v izuchenii dinamiki yazykovykh aspektov politicheskogo mediadiskursa” [Vectors of Argumentative Orientation in the Study of the Dynamics of Linguistic Aspects of Political Media Discourse] In Izvestiya Baikal’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Proceedings, Irkutsk, 31(1), Pp. 98–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-2759.2021.31(1).98-102.Print. (In Russ)
Arquivos suplementares
