Specificity of markers of argumentation in scientific text

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

SPECIFICITY OF MARKERS OF ARGUMENTATION IN SCIENTIFIC TEXT

Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyi State

Pedagogical University

named after Hryhoriy Skovoroda

This article reveals the functioning of argumentation markers from the point of view of their function in the scientific text, correlation with psychical side of the language functioning. Influence of using the markers of argumentation for persuading and thoughts of recipient. Markers of argumentation are an obligatory part of any kind of proof.

Relevance of the study determined that the issue of tokens of argumentation in scientific discourse is not fully covered in the scientific literature. This issue is closely connected with the modern trends of development of linguistics, in particular with the pragmatics of the text and psycholinguistics. In addition, the communicative approach to the argument is determined primarily by the fact that within its framework examines non-dialogic voice messages. Of course, under such a method does not involve the presence of feedback, the conventional function of the argument (the methods of determining the truth of the messages to the communicants, the consensus on the issue of consistency of reasoning, etc. ) assigned to the background. However, this disadvantage is offset by the need to increase attention to the author and the real or potential recipient thereof to the adequacy of regulatory compliance with the rules of reasoning and verbal communication postulates that, if necessary, are taken in a simple, traditional form. The reality of text communication as a separate species of speech communication makes to speak not only about the semantics and pragmatics of the text, but the text of the argument. marker argumentation scientific text

Analysis of recent researches und publications. Question reasoning was investigated by scholars such as A.D. Belova, N.I. Kondakova L. Olbreht-Titska, E.V. Kluev, A.N. Baranov, Downing, Locke, A.P. Alekseev, G.A. Brutyan, A.A. Ivin, V.I. Kurbatov, Ch. Ruzavin and other linguists.

Mainstreaming the study of argumentation in a number of pressing philosophical problems were largely prepared by the writings of X. Perelman and I. Olbreht - Titek devoted to understanding the heritage of classical rhetoric. «The new rhetoric,» the founder of the Belgian school of argument X. Perelman as arguments. In collaboration with L. Olbreht - Titskoy they come to the conclusion that the «new rhetoric,» or the theory of argumentation is the field of study of psychology. They virtually eliminate the role of logic in the argument, through the consolidation of all possible logical exercise in mathematical logic, according to them is to analyze the methods of proof are effectively used by mathematicians.

Different understanding of the argument can be found in representatives of the Dutch school of argument F. van Eemerena and I. Grootendorsta. At the core of this definition is a social activity directed at other people.

They understand the argumentation as verbal, social and mental activity aimed at convincing a judge and rational (non) acceptance of this point of view expressed by the extension of certain combinations of offers (arguments), designed to bring the (negation) expressed thoughts.

But in spite of the relatively large number of papers on various aspects of the argument, the popularity of the argument as an object of study, it is impossible to speak of a coherent theory. The very problem of reasoning continues to be one of the most complex in logic, and almost never considered in linguistics. In fact, natural speech argument recently become a subject of study. The difficulty of defining and constructing a theory of argumentation is the complex nature of the latter. Therefore, it is hardly possible to define the argument, which would equally suit all professionals.

Question reasoning is closely related to such sciences as logic, rhetoric, psychology.

In this study, the text is seen as a message, objectified in the form of a written document, which consists of a number of statements, the combined different types of lexical, grammatical and logical connection that has a certain ideal character, pragmatic installation and, therefore, there is a literary processed.

Logic in the scientific in the scientific text is understood as exposition laws logical exposition of thought. Scientific text, in particular, is a series of techniques designed linguistically logical thinking - thinking, arguments, theses, definitions, objective scientific style is associated with the extra-linguistic factors as the documentary. Objectivity due to the peculiarities of scientific knowledge - the desire to establish an objective scientific truth.

As a result, scientific thinking has a distinct abstract-logical character, which manifests itself in the properties and selection of language tools to create a scientific text.

Not accidentally, subject to extra-linguistic reality, we are in the scientific literature - chosen such lexical units, phraseological and syntactic structures that meet the requirements of clarity, accuracy and objectivity of the presentation to ensure adequate perception of scientific information across a group of people involved in science communication. All this is reflected in the style of scientific writing, in an effort to matching the signs used the expression plane of the content.

This is made possible by the application of the laws of logic of thought (the message - its development, conclusion, or thesis-proof-generalization) as an instrument of knowledge. After all, the best idea, if it is not justified and, importantly, is not expressed in the relevant sector, it remains just an idea.

Since the argument of language activity, including a system of propositions intended to justify or deny any thought, it is addressed primarily to the mind of the person who is able to, consider, accept or refute this view. Arguing, we have something to say or write, forming a text addressed to another person in order to have a significant influence on his views, encourage the commission of certain acts. It is believed that the reasoning process is necessary share of people's beliefs in their communication and communicative activities in general. In the scientific communication through persuasion argumentator seeks to change attitudes, thoughts, and behavior of the interlocutor, not by coercion but by rational means and methods. The argument does not act on the feelings and emotions of the people, and in their minds

The purpose and objectives of the article. The purpose of the article is to make a synthesis of the functioning of the markers of argumentation in scientific discourse.

This purpose of the research involves the following objectives: Consider a scientific text as a special form of communication; Consider a typology of scientific texts; Investigate pragmatics of scientific text; Make a pooled analysis of pragmatic tools in the scientific text; Make a generalized analysis of the types of reasoning; Determine the structure of the argument; To analyze the specifics of the argument in the scientific text.

The study is to try to light the functioning of the markers of argument from the point of view of their operation in the scientific text, their relationship with the psychological aspect of language functioning, that is, the influence of the use of markers of reasoning and thinking to convince the recipient. The term «argument» has several definitions, largely prevents the study of this phenomenon. Despite the large number of papers on various aspects of argumentation and reasoning in popularity as an object of study, we still can not talk about a holistic theory [3, 5], or at least its generally accepted definition that would suit all researchers.

Interest in natural-speaking argument appears in the second half of the XX century, philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, logic, linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, conflict resolution, ergonomics, a reflection of the steady integration of parallel processes within cognitive science paradigm and process within the scientific disciplines. On the other hand, the desire to create an integrated theory of argumentation is due to its association with such relevant areas as human factors engineering, categorization of human behavior modeling human activity. At its core, the cognitive paradigm has become an integrating factor for many scientific disciplines, this is another, a new attempt to get closer to the knowledge of the nature of human consciousness. Distinguishes it from all previous awareness of experts from the fact that it can succeed only through common efforts of psychology, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy [1].

This also contributes to and is increasingly aware of the need extend outside the region, which had previously been considered a purely linguistic. Indeed the use of force (as kinetic action) can be viewed as a kind of reasoning, a form of the continuation of the dispute. But this inevitably raises the question of limiting cases in the definition of the concept of argumentation. Boxing, for example, where physical force is used, also aims to prove and convince the audience that the opponent is stronger than the other one, but the goal of persuasion is secondary, and the box can not be regarded as argument.

No less important is the fact that the belief is the aim of argument, be sure to include the factor of voluntary choice on the part of the recipient. Many other non-linguistic elements of communication, as irony, flattery, lies, should also get a place in the appropriate linguistic structures.

So, the natural-language argumentation in developing intersubject environment can be studied only in unity with the non-verbal communicators. Integration of science and their mutual influence led to the fact that the fore in argumentation theory out social factors - the trust factor in the argument, the distance between the start and the information received, the emotional impact on the recipient, the formation of its position and visibility. It pushes to the following issues: characteristics of argumentative discourse, the ratio of arguments and evidence, the ratio of argumentation in different functional styles, informative adequacy ratio and redundancy in the argument, the macro-, and micro-speech acts structuring arguments, and more.

The concept of «argumentation» is increasingly found in the scientific literature as philosophically and in philological. Mainstreaming the study of argumentation in a number of pressing philosophical problems were largely trained and works H. Perelmana I. Olbreht-Titskoy devoted to understanding the heritage of classical rhetoric. «The new rhetoric,» the founder of the Belgian school of argument H. Perelman as arguments. In cooperation with L. Olbreht-Titskoy they come to the conclusion that «the new rhetoric,» or the theory of argumentation is the field of study of psychology. They virtually eliminate the role of logic in the argument, through the consolidation of all possible logical exercise in mathematical logic, according to them is to analyze the methods of proof are effectively used by mathematicians.

Other understanding of the argument can be found in representatives of the Dutch school of argument F. Eemerena and Y. Grootendorsta. At the core of this definition is a social activity directed at other people. They understand the reasoning as verbal, social and mental activity aimed at convincing a judge and rational (non) acceptance of this point of view expressed by the extension of certain combinations of offers (arguments), designed to bring the (negation) expressed thoughts (Eemeren 5,1994). By «rational judge» means a reasonable medium language in which the speaker sees the person who assesses what he says. The speaker comes from the fact that a rational judge will try, if possible, the most properly assess whether this argument is acceptable or not, there will be taking a decision on the argument after the contribution it makes to the solution of the dispute.

In the scientific literature of the USSR argument basic ally considered in the mainstream of formal logic, the way it is treated in the «logical dic- tionary-reference» N.I. Kondakova which considers the argument as guidance logical arguments to prove any position, as a logical process. Close within the meaning of the definition can be found in the book «Logic,» Professor V.F. Asmus, who represents it as reasoning, consisting of a number of conclusions to prove the truth or falsity of the thesis [2].

In Ukraine, the problems of argumentation began to study only in the middle of 1990-th and until recently little scientific papers were written that the disclosure of the subject. Professor A.D. Belova, in his paper «Linguistic aspects of reasoning,» provides, in our opinion, the true definition of discipline. According to her, the argument is a communicative activity of a subject in a trinity of verbal, non-verbal and extra-linguistic, the purpose of which is to convince the recipient through proper justification of its position Belova 1997). The current literature on the theory of argumentation is very widely believed that the reasoning is universal, regardless of their social, class, national factors. But the various areas in which it is used, add the process of argumentation and reasoning their shades. The specificity of the scientific areas may impose such a significant impact on the nature and the nature of the argument, the argument blurs status as the only way of reasoning.

The reasoning in the field of scientific relations is considered as a specific form of activity. The arguments used in scientific discussions, for example, intended to justify the laws of cause and effect relationships in nature. It is believed that scientific reasoning is associated with the justification of facts and laws of their relations without regard to who their proves or disproves who make certain theses, for what purpose it is done, what the motives of personal control panel members. The proof of the truth of any thesis in science has nothing to do with what strata of society is the author of the extended position, whose interests are expressed. And even more than that, the scientific evidence will be even more correct, accurate and fair, if we can eliminate any subjectivity, to create an environment where the main motive of the discussion serves truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth. According A.D. Belova, the main condition of argument can reach a consensus, the motion on the basis of two opposition «unity-contradiction» to solving the conflict [4].

Conclusion

The main purpose of any argument is the belief in the correctness of the recipient of your thoughts and opinions. And the main means of persuasion, as in ancient times, is proof. It is this type of argumentative broadcasting accounted for the largest share of the use of argumentation markers, and this is where they perform their function directly. So, as we can see, the number of argumentation markers is great in any language of the world, and each groups and subgroups can be divided into smaller structural formations, depending on their structural and semantic meaning. And there is no possibility to classify certainly markers to a particular group, because these linguistic units can sometimes change their affiliation depending on the context.

Markers of argumentation is an obligatory component of any scientific proof, because the absence of a specific semantic relation between the sentences would be impossible for the reader, in simultaneously with the reading of the text to qualify this relationship, which is contrary to the requirements of the communicative clarity of scientific text.

References:

1. Arutiunova N. L. Strategy and tactics of the verbal behavior / N. D. Ariutunova // Pragmatic aspects of sudy of the text and sentence. - Kyiv, 1983.

2. Asmus V. F. Study of Logics about the proof and refutation / V. F. Asmus. - Moscow, 1954.

3. Baranov L. G. Functionally-pragmatic conception of the text / A. G. Baranov. - Rostov-on-Don: Rostov Univerity Publishing House, 1993.

4. Belova A. D. Linguistic aspects of argumentation / Responsible red. A. I. Cherednichenko / A. D. Belova. - Kiev, Astreya, 1997.

5. Eemeren F. H. van and R. Grootendorst (eds. 1994) Studies in pragma-dialectics / F. H. Eemeren.- Amsterdam, 1994.

6. Kamenskaya O. L. Text and communications: Study guide for institutes and faculties of foreign languages / O. L. Kamenskaya. - M.: High School.

7. Kazydub N. P. Three factors of argumentation strategy in discourse area: <planning> / N. P. // Problems of verbal influence and linguistic argumentation. Serim Linguistics. - № 2. - Irkutsk. - 200.

Анотація