Logical and linguistic features of conductive arguments in environmental media discourse

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The subject of the study is the logical and grammatical structure of conclusions. The object of the study is conductive arguments. The authors of the article consider the implementation of such arguments in an environmental media discourse. Unlike formal logic, natural language argumentation is more often based on examples, analogies and reasoning that do not ensure the full truth of conclusions, since they can only be true with a certain degree of probability. Probabilistic arguments can have different interpretations and lead to different conclusions. A variety of such arguments is the class of conductive arguments. These are arguments that contradict other arguments presented in support of a particular conclusion. The study of conductive arguments is relevant because their role in argumentation has been little studied. In addition, environmental topics in the media give contextual characteristics to the argumentation, which makes it possible to trace the change in logical canons in reasoning. The method of reconstruction of argumentative discourse using the analytical tool "Argumentative Step" was used in the work. The elements of argumentation were analyzed in accordance with the model of argumentative functions. A theoretical analysis of the literature has shown that conductive elements in the process of argumentation do not receive sufficient coverage in Russian argumentology. The analysis of empirical material revealed a significant number of non-deductive conclusions in the argumentation. As a result of the study, the following conclusions were drawn. 1. Conductive arguments are an immanent part of the proof structure. 2. The textual constructions corresponding to the conductive arguments reflect the semantics of the counterthesis, the balance between arguments, reservations, as well as the extension of the thesis, that is, the expansion of the scope of the thesis. In the analyzed texts in English, markers of opposition and limitations were found, such as conjunctions, particles, prepositions "but", "even", "although", "even if", "in spite of", "despite of", "unless". These markers indicate the presence of conductive arguments in the text.

References

  1. Баребина Н.С., Глызина В.Е., Леонтьев А.А., Максимова Н.В. Изучение способов и средств интенсивности в алармистских дискурсах // Litera. 2023. № 1. С. 69-77. doi: 10.25136/2409-8698.2023.1.39578 EDN: HPFKOT URL: https://e-notabene.ru/fil/article_39578.html
  2. Бокмельдер Д. А. Обоснование разумных решений. Saarbrucken : LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2014. 294 с.
  3. Васильев Л. Г. Аргументация и ее понимание: Логико-лингвистический подход. Калуга: Калужск. гос. ун-т им. К.Э. Циолковского, 2014. 331 с.
  4. Леонтьев А. А. К вопросу о реконфигурации экологического дискурса (на примере взаимодействия научного и экологического дискурса в медиа) // Глобальный научный потенциал. 2023. № 5 (146). С. 230–232.
  5. Goorden D., Fischer Th. Conductive arguments and the ‘inference to the best explanation’ // OSSA Conference Archive. 2001. 26. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA9/papersandcommentaries/26
  6. Hansen H. V. Notes on Balance-of-Considerations Arguments // An Overlooked Type of Defeasible Reasoning. London: College Publications. 2011. Pp. 30–51.
  7. Hitchcock D., Wohlrapp H. R. The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation. Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning 4 // Argumentation 30. 2016. Pp. 353–363. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9365-3
  8. Johnson R.H. Manifest Rationality. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 2000. 391 p.
  9. Laar J. van. Arguments that Take Considerations into Account // Informal Logic. 2014. 34(3). Pp. 240–275.
  10. Liao Y. The Legitimacy of Conductive Arguments: What Are the Logical Roles of Negative Considerations? // From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild / F. van Eemeren, B. Garssen (eds). Argumentation Library. 2020. Vol. 35. Springer, Cham. Pp. 255–267. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_16
  11. Lisanyuk E. Hinges, Deep Disagreement and Fixed Points in the Argumentation Logic // Логико-философские штудии. 2021. Т. 19. № 1. С. 112–116. doi: 10.52119/LPHS.2021.92.34.008.
  12. Pandzić S. A Logic of Defeasible Argumentation: Constructing Arguments in Justification Logic // Argument and Computation. 2022. Т. 13. № 1. С. 3–47.
  13. Pinto R. Weighing evidence in the context of conductive reasoning // Conductive Argumentation / R. H. Johnson, T. A. Blair (eds). London: College Publications. 2011. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238714035_Weighing_Evidence_in_the_Context_of_Conductive_Reasoning
  14. Plantin C. Conductive Argument // Dictionnaire de l'argumentation 2021. URL: https://icar.cnrs.fr/dicoplantin/conductive-argument-e/
  15. Possin K. Conductive Arguments: Why is This Still a Thing? // Informal Logic. 2016. Vol. 36, No. 4. Pp. 563–593.
  16. Roberts J. “Political ecology” / The Open Encyclopedia of Anthropology / F. Stein (ed.). 2023. URL: http://doi.org/10.29164/20polieco
  17. Shiyang Yu Sh., Zenker F. A Dialectical View on Conduction: Reasons, Warrants, and Normal Suasory Inclinations // Informal Logic. 2019. Vol. 39. No. 1. Pp. 32–69. doi: 10.22329/il.v39i1.5080
  18. Xie Y. Argument by Analogy in Ancient China // Argumentation. 2019. Volume 33, Pp. 323–347. doi: 10.1007/S10503-018-09475-7.
  19. Xie Y. Conductive Argument as a Mode of Strategic Maneuvering // Informal Logic. 2017. 37(1). Pp. 2–22.
  20. Xie Y. On the Logical Reconstruction of Conductive Arguments // From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild / F. van Eemeren, B. Garssen (eds). Argumentation Library. 2020. Vol 35. Springer, Cham. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_15

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).