CC BY
35
ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
UDC 81'22 N. S. Barebina
Argumentation as Languaging (a Biocognitive View)
One of the most prominent conception of argumentation is persuasive effectiveness which can be traced in any reasoning, be it a legal discussion, a public controversy, political and academic words or a face-to-face interaction. The claim here is that arguing is a mode of language existence and human existence in general. To substantiate this statement, two aspects are to be presented. 1. Language-cognition aspect. The language component is itself the subject of systematic reflection in argumentation researches. But the idea that persuasiveness in argumentative practice comes down to particular cognitive mechanisms is hardly being considered explicitly among argumentation-oriented linguists. Most argumentation theorists are of the opinion, and we agree here, that the argumentation theory has little to gain from the cognitive linguistics as a scientific discipline that deals with the "black box" of the individual's mind which should be opened and understood. The research within the last decade, which is known as a biologically oriented paradigm for the study of cognition and language, has made it clear that another methodology should be taken into account to analyze the language in human interactions. Built on the biology of cognition as a theory of living systems, this theoretical platform considers the language as grounded in human biology. It focuses on interactions as a joint activity with others, or languaging which is a part of orienting behavior. 2. Social-reasonable-persuasive aspect. Unlike the traditional cognitive approach, biocognitive paradigm postulates that cognitive processes may extend beyond the head of the individual, thus, cognition should be explored as distributed in the body, mind, physical, social, and cultural environment of a human. This means that the individuals should not be isolated from their social environment in studies of communication. It has appealing implications in the field of argumentation theory. As for persuasiveness which, in our opinion, means to make the addressee think and act in a particular way, it depends primarily on reasonableness which is not absolute. Reasonableness is acceptable only within a certain cultural and social constellation as a kind of a common ground (shared history, knowledge, practices) in a social system.
Keywords: languaging, arguing, communication, biocognitive approach, Anscombre and Ducrot's approach, polyphonic and topical analysis, common ground, persuasiveness.
Н. С. Баребина
АРГУМЕНТАЦИЯ КАК ЯЗЫКОВАЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ (БИОКОГНИТИВНЫЙ ПОДХОД)
Неотъемлемым компонентом аргументации является понятие эффективности убеждения, которое прослеживается в любом рассуждении, будь то дискуссия в сфере юриспруденции, публичный
БАРЕБИНА Наталья Сергеевна - к. филол. н., доц. каф. иностранных языков Байкальского государственного университета, докторант, Иркутск. E-mail: svirel23@rambler.ru
BAREBINA Natalia Sergeevna - Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor at the Chair of Foreign Languages of Baikal National University.
диспут, политическая или академическая полемика или спор лицом к лицу. В статье утверждается, что аргументирование является способом бытования языка и человека в целом. В качестве обоснования такого утверждения рассмотрены два аспекта. 1) Когнитивно-языковой аспект. Языковой аспект является предметом тщательной научной рефлексии в аргументативных исследованиях. Однако идея о том, что убедительность в практике аргументации связана с определенными когнитивными механизмами редко эксплицируется лингвистами, исследующими аргументацию. Большинство исследователей в этой области придерживается разделяемого нами мнения о том, что теория аргументации имеет мало точек соприкосновения при взаимодействии с когнитивной лингвистикой, исследующей «черный ящик» разума индивида, который можно открыть и понять. Проводящиеся в последние десятилетия исследования языка и когниции в рамках биологически ориентированной парадигмы показывают, что для анализа языка в человеческой интеракции необходима иная методология. Основанная на биологии познания как теории живых систем эта теоретическая платформа исследует язык как неотделимый от человеческой биологии феномен. В центре исследований оказываются языковые взаимодействия как совместная деятельность с другими или "языковая деятельность", являющаяся частью ориентирующего поведения. 2) Социально обоснованный аспект убеждения. В отличие от традиционного когнитивного подхода в биокогнитивной парадигме утверждается то, что когнитивные процессы могут распространяться за пределы мозга индивида, таким образом, когницию следует изучать как распределенную не только в теле и мозге человека, но и как распределенную в его физическом, социальном и культурном окружении. Это означает, что в исследовании языковой коммуникации индивиды не должны быть изолированы от социальной среды. В статье демонстрируется возможность применения такого подхода в рамках теории аргументации. Так, убедительность, предполагающая то, чтобы адресат думал и действовал определенным образом, в первую очередь зависит от обоснования, которое не является абсолютным. Обоснование приемлемо только в рамках культурного и социального контекстов как общего основания (разделяемый исторический контекст, общие знания, обычаи) в социальной системе.
Ключевые слова: «языковая деятельность», аргументирование, коммуникация, биокогнитивный подход, подход Ж.-К. Анскомбра и О. Дюкро, полифонический и топический анализ, общие основания, убедительность.
Introduction
It is a common place in the current argumentative research to state that linguistic dimension is intrinsic to the argumentation theory. However, a number of approaches to argumentation have expressed suspicion, if not mistrust, towards language science. Let us briefly mention why language-oriented approaches have been considered problematic. Linguistics as a scientific study of the language and communication has a long history. It accumulates a vast number of approaches, theories, and directions. Many of them, being incompatible and contradictory, continue to coexist simultaneously. This poses a serious problem for professional communication among both linguists and scientists from other disciplines. Secondly, linguistics is itself an inter-disciplinary science; because of its diversity, complexity, and rate of developments, one might easily lose sight of the ways in which language in argumentation can be investigated. Thus, a promising idea, that argumentation theory has much to gain from linguistics due to studying the natural language that reveals the underlying reasoning processes, remains a project.
One can speak about three areas of linguistic research in the field of argumentation theory: a) linguistic markers; b) discursive processes; c) cognitive operations.
The first area of works stems from the theory of "argumentation in the language system" of Anscombre and Ducrot which has been developed since 1980s [1], [2]. It explores the argumentative potential of the language as a system. The main outline of this approach is that it regards "argu-mentativity" as being a general feature of human language, and for this reason every utterance is argumentative. A further notable outline is the "study of connectives" as functional units which are used to express argumentative instructions. This approach can hardly be described as cutting-edge, especially after the cognitive turn in linguistics circa 1990. However, as will be shown
later, Anscombre and Ducrot's polyphonic and topical analyses is a fruitful field in contemporary developments of the cognitive approach to argumentation study.
The second area is centered on the idea that argumentative discourse is a specific kind of communication. In this discourse, in contradistinction to expositional, narrative, or descriptive one the discoursive phenomena trigger argumentative effects. These phenomena manifest in a different way. They may be traced as many different means of speech presentation, such as rhetorical, stylistic devices, various argumentative schemes.
A relatively recent cognitive trend in argumentation studies has emerged from the growing influence of neighboring disciplines such us psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience. Our claim here is that a properly linguistic dimension of argumentation is seldom considered in the cognitive perspective and remains most of the times associated to the field of psychological research. While the latter allows us to gain insight into the nature of individual mental processes and human thinking, it oftentimes constrains research to the issue of the interaction between language and cognition in the process of argumentative communication. The cognitive linguistics as an approach to the study of language offers new insights not only into linguistic phenomena but also into a wide variety of social, psychological, and cultural phenomena.
One of the goals of this paper is to contribute a proposal for research at the language/cognition/ argumentation interface which highlights the linguistic dimension of argumentation by exploring the following questions: what are the main theoretical positions in the cognitive linguistics today? How to apply its main findings to the study of argumentation? What linguistic methodology is most appropriate for cognitive research in argumentation? First, we will conduct a brief review of literature on cognitive-oriented approach to the study of argumentation to show its place in the field of the relevant research. Then, we will outline theoretical assumptions of the biocognitive approach in linguistics - Distributed cognition and Languaging. We will conclude by emphasizing the methodological capability of Ducrot and Anscombre's polyphonic and topical analyses within the above mentioned conceptual framework.
Language-cognition aspect
The current cognitive approach to argumentation is anchored in the tradition to concentrate on arguers (not on arguments), on how people's cognitive systems generate and integrate arguments. This idea was developed in a line of research in two perspectives termed by Meyers and Seibold as "Cognitive-Informational" and "Social-Interactional" [3, p. 205]. Contemporary cognitive-oriented research can be parceled this way as well.
Cognitive-informational perspective assumes that argument is a product of individual cognitive systems; arguing is considered to be an individual information processing which results in arguments. Baranov describes cognitive effects and mechanisms in terms of persuasion from the point of view of changing the mental state of the addressee of the argumentative message [4], Dessales provides modeling cognitive mechanisms of human reasoning, interpretation, meaning construction [5], Pasquer, Rahwan, Dignum and Sonenberg regard modeling a persuasive message in communication [6]. The focus of all these studies is on arguers which are "sender-receiver system".
A related trend in the presented perspective is cognitive-developmental approach which is mostly psychological. Its proponents concentrate on argumentative competency. Bokmelder advances the idea that cognitive biases identified in psychology correlate with fallacious reasoning patterns [7]. Rapanta and Garcia-Mila investigate psychopedagogical nature of argument skills and their manifestation as competent performance [8].
Social-interaction perspective highlights the importance of social factors in communication. This framework shifts the traditional focus "sender-receiver" on "argument-in-interaction" in view of cognitive circumstances that surround the production, reception and evaluation of the argument. This line of research devoted to analyses of the rules that underpin interpersonal arguments [9], analyses argumentation in small groups [10]. Billig in "Arguing and Thinking" [11] suggests that attitudes are best understood as emerged in the context where there is a potential argument. Guillem [12] provides socio-cognitive approach to argumentative communication. The key feature
of this perspective is treating arguing as a continuous process where arguments emerge and are accomplished within the constraints of the social system.
Going back to the purposes of the article, let us examine how the described cognitive-oriented approaches to argumentation relate to the cognitive linguistics.
The cognitive-informational perspective corresponds to the tendency in linguistics to consider cognitive ability with the connection of mental activity only within the heads of individuals, or at least, within their bodies (internalist account). The function of language in this view is to transfer messages (thoughts, meanings, intentions) from senders to receivers, which are input-output systems (the "conduit metaphor" or the transmission model). According to this view, communication is a process in which one expresses what one thinks or feels so that others can know what one thinks or feels, thus, "meaning" is seen as a function or translation of expression. This viewpoint is seriously criticized in contemporary research as invalidating many linguistic models.
The social-interaction perspective in the study of argumentation is very close to the "third generation" of the cognitive science (in Steffensen's terms [13]) influenced by the "biological theory of cognition" of Humberto Maturana [14] that has emerged in linguistics in recent years. This direction treats cognition as integrated processes that take place, not only in the human brain or body, but also in its extracorporeal environment. As such, social aspect of cognition is important. Proponents of this wave of the cognitive science deny that the language is a tool or a symbolic code for the transfer of thoughts, rather they emphasize its embodiment and co-actionality. Communication, to use the terminology of the biologically oriented paradigm for the study of cognition and language, is not exchange of information; rather, it is joint activity aimed at creating a consensual domain of interactions, including linguistic interactions or orienting behavior (the "dancing metaphor"). In the next section we will try to show that the social-interactional perspective in the cognitive approach of argumentation study is extremely relevant for contemporary orthodox cognitive scientific criticism in general and for the present analysis in particular.
Social-reasonable-persuasive aspect
Stating that arguing is a kind of jointly produced, socially governed activity, social-interactional understanding of argumentation corroborates main theoretical assumptions of the biocognitive approach in linguistics - Distributed cognition and Languaging.
Distributed cognition
Unlike the traditional cognitive approach, the biocognitive paradigm postulates that cognitive processes may extend beyond the head of the individual, thus, cognition should be explored as distributed in the body, mind, physical, social, and cultural environment of a human (see, for example [15], [16], [17]. This means that the individuals should not be isolated from their social environment when researching about communication.
The idea of the distributed cognition can be traced in several works. For example Billig posits: "...many of the phenomena that psychologists traditionally treat as internal mental processes are actually formed with discourse" [18, p. 228]. Guillem carries on this idea: "The fact that arguing can be equated to reasoning does not mean that it is a purely internal process that takes place within the individuals' minds" [12, p. 730]. As explained by the author, such forms of "social cognition" as shared attitudes, ideologies, norms and values are crucial from the point of view of their influence on forming arguments and their perception.
The language-oriented approach to the study of argumentation by Anscombre and Ducrot, being non-cognitive, has many points of contact with the idea of the distributed cognition. This approach is considered to be problematic with respect to cognitive-oriented study of argumentation as reducing all linguistic phenomena to a semantic-pragmatic level of analysis. And we agree, it has nothing common with cognitive paradigm according to which the human brain is a computer that takes information from the outer world, processes it by applying computational rules and produces the output. However, the latest version of Anscombre and Ducrot's approach including the concept of polyphony, is accordant with the main ideas of the distributed cognition theory. To substantiate this claim we offer to consider the case of using Bible References in political discourse.
The most obvious language structures dealing with the polyphony concept are: direct and indirect reported speech, citation, precedent texts. Polyphony can be traced in all kinds of arguments where speaker/writer appeals to Authority or to Popular opinion. An example illustrating the concept of polyphony in the argumentative discourse on the distributed view can be drawn from politicians' speeches where motivational Bible verses and quotes are used.
(1) The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable to human affairs, and in this as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us; he would gathereth not with us scattereth [19].
In polyphonic terms this statement can be considered as a part of a dialogue: through the "enun-ciator" (Mattew 11:23), the "speaker" (the politician) introduces a certain view on what is being said by "locators" (people "for us", people "against us", and the speaker himself). This may be illustrated by the scheme 1, where P is the concept of polyphony, V, -V - various voices, including contrast relations:
P~Vp Vy (^ -V5) d)
This dialogical activity links circumstances, cultural constructs, local beliefs because the Bible for Christians is part of the socio-cultural environment. By stating this, we mean that a great amount of topoi from the Scripture is widely represented by all kind of signs: written, pictoral, auditory, material artifacts and combinations of these. The Biblical subjects can be considered as a corpus of topoi which have their spatial and temporal scale. Using the Biblical word, the arguer can appeal to ethical standards, traditions, codes contained in the ethos of the Bible as part of the topos. It gives an opportunity to effect the addressee through appealing to the authority of the Bible (using authoritative arguments in classical taxonomy). Thus, the reasoning in this dialogical activity involves coordination between individuals, artifacts, and the environment, and distributed across time-scale.
The idea we are trying to deepen in the course of this paragraph is that the concept of polyphony corresponds with the three fundamental characteristics of distributed cognition identified by E. Hutchings [20]: cognition is 1) distributed across the members of a social group, 2) involves coordination between internal and external (material or environmental) structures, 3) distributed through time in such a way that the products of earlier events can transform the nature of the related events.
Languaging
Humberto Maturana developed a quite unique approach to the language. Built on biology of cognition as a theory of living systems, this theoretical platform considers language as grounded in human biology. According to this view our language occurs in languaging as a joint activity with others in coordinations of coordinations of consensual behaviors or actions without reference to independent referents or realities [21, p. 30]. Kravchenko describes Maturana's concept of "languaging" as allowing the language sciences to depart from the view of language as a system of symbols. "Instead, - he writes, - focus should be placed on how the relational dynamics of linguistic interactions trigger changes in the dynamics of the nervous system and the organism as a whole, and how their reciprocal causality is distinguished and described by the languaging observer in terms of mind, intelligence, reason, and self-consciousness" [22].
For the present purposes the most prominent idea of this approach is the assumption that lan-guaging is part of adaptive behavior and serves, among other things, to orient. This tenet deals with directing the attention within a consensual domain of interactions. Orienting interactions, according to Humberto Maturana, "are possible only if the domains of interactions of the two organisms are to some extent comparatible" [21, p. 30].
Our claim is that the theory of "argumentation in the language-system" lies on very similar epistemological horizon by stating the concept of "argumentative orientation". This orientation predetermines all sentences to serve in support of particular types of conclusion rather than others. According to Anscombre and Ducrot, the topoi are immanent in the meaning of the predicates,
and through the topoi argumentative values already enter the sentences as they "initially" are. All predicates implicitly refer to a particular topos as a generalization which belongs to a social and cultural community. Certain argumentative features and argumentative orientation are already written in the lexical and syntactical constructions.
We'll illustrate our understanding of argumentative orientation with excerpts from two articles concerning one and the same event. We used the "method of sentiment classification", presented by Dmitry Levinson [23] (based on the works on argumentative orientation developed by Jean-Claude Anscombre and Oswald Ducrot, this method employs the semantic orientation of adjectives and other words).
(2) Angela Merkel has rejected President Putin's invitation to attend a military parade in Moscow marking the end of the Second World War. It would be impossible for the German leader to observe the traditional display of Russian military hardware, held on May 9, after the aggression shown by its forces in Ukraine, her office said yesterday [24].
(3) German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not attend an official ceremony in Moscow on May 9 to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II due to tensions of the Ukraine crisis, government officials said on Wednesday. "In light of the developments in Ukraine, it is impossible for Merkel to take part in the traditional military parade on Red Square", a government official said [25].
The informative component of the both excerpts is similar. They describe one and the same state of affairs: Merkel's refusal to present at the official Ceremony in Moscow. These propositions have different argumentative orientations and conclusions that follow from them. Argumentative orientation is carried out on the lexical level. In example (2) the authors use words and expression that have various degree of negative connotation. In example (3) the author uses lexical units that convey neutral and positive connotation. Argumentative orientation is achieved by using words and expressions with opposite semantic orientation:
The two excerpts orient at opposite conclusions about the Ceremony which are illustrated in Fig. 1.
The abovementioned lexical units modify the semantic orientation of two articles without containing overt authors' points of view. These examples show how speaker/writer supposes that the message must be taken by the listeners/readers on the condition if they have reasons for that. Appealing to these reasons, which are not always obvious, always presents in the speech in its context, even in cases where the speaker is not aware of this. Therefore, there is always an explicit or implicit reference to the corresponding topos that links what is said and the basis of its adoption by addressees. The authors of the article in "The Times" (example 2) refer to the topos which is obviously approved by its audience (it is associated with cautious attitude towards Russia and its President). This topos is not relevant to Russian Times readers. The results of our survey of a group of Russian informants show that the abovementioned parade is least associated with the demonstration of military force and not associated with the Russian President.
Positive
argumentative
scale
World War II Victory day (3)
traditional military parade on Red Square (3) to reject (3), crises (3)
r
Negative
argumentative
scale
--military parade (2)
<
traditional display of Russian military hardware (2)
to snub (2) aggression (2)
v
Fig. 1. Positive and negative argumentative scales
These two examples reveal the nature of reasonableness which is not absolute. Reasonableness is acceptable only within a certain cultural and social constellation as a kind of a common ground (shared history, knowledge, practices) in community of individuals as a unity of linguistic interactions.
These two examples should be taken into consideration while viewing the language in communication as part of the social and physical environment. The most important components of this environment are socially and subjectively conditioned values, patterns of social behavior, stereotypes which are distributed across the members of a social group in space and time. We argue that the aforesaid component is an implicit constituent element of persuasion which can be investigated through the category of "topos" as a part of argumentative discourse.
Conclusion
1) Going back to the purposes of the article, we claim that the presented approach still requires a thorough scientific reflection. However, we can say that it opens a new vista of argumentation study in the aspect of communication. For instance, the biocognitive paradigm and in particular the theory of distributed cognition offers an alternative to transmission model of communication and dissolves the traditional divisions between the inside/outside boundary of the individual and the socium/cognition distinction. The argumentative discourse by virtue of its tough addressing presents a great testing ground for investigation the orienting function of language.
2) An important conclusion is that Ducrot and Anscombre's polyphonic and topical analyses of argumentation with its research methodology can be used as a tool of analysis at the lexical and semantic levels within the frameworks of the biocognitive approach. The latter, even though it has scientific potential in explaining the issues in the argumentative communication functioning in various fields of human activities, is still on the stage of its methodological formation.
3) Assuming that argumentativity is a general feature of human language (in accordance with Anscombre and Ducrot's approach), we extrapolate this idea to the concept of consensual domain of interactions (one of the key elements of biocognitive approach) in which languaging takes place. This allows us to ascribe the attribute of orientational activity to argumentative communication.
R e f e r e n c e s
1. Anscombre J.-C. L 'argumentation dans la langue / J.-C. Anscombre, O. Ducrot. - Bruxelles: Mardaga, 1983. - 193 p.
2. Anscombre J.-C., Ducrot O. Argumentativity and informativity / J.-C. Anscombre, O. Ducrot // From metaphysics to rhetoric / M. Meyer (Ed.). - Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989. - P. 71-87.
3. Meyers R. A. Interactional and Non-Interactional Perspectives on Interpersonal Argument / R. A. Meyers, D. R. Seibold // Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. - Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland, 1986. - P. 205-215.
4. Baranov A. N. Lingvisticheskaja teorija argumentacii (kognitivnyj podhod): dis. ... d-ra filol. nauk: 10.02.01, 10.02.19 / A. N. Baranov. - M.: Institut russkogo jazyka, 1990. - 378 s.
5. Dessalles J-L. A computational model of argumentation in everyday conversation: a problem-centered approach // Computational Models of Argument Proceedings of COMMA 2008 / P. Besnard et al (Eds.). - Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008. - P. 128-133.
6. Pasquer P. Argumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory / P. Pasquer P., L. Rahwan, F. Dignum, L. Sonenberg // Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4766. - 2007. - P. 193-210.
7. Bokmelder D. Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies // Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. - Amsterdam: Sic Sat. - 2015. - P. 147-154.
8. Rapanta C. What is Meant by Argumentative Competence? / C. Rapanta, C. Garcia-Mila // Review of Educational Research. - 2013. - 83(4). - P. 483-520.
9. Gilbert M. A. Coalescent Argumentation. NY, London: Routledge. - 2013. - 176 p.
10. Gillies R. M. Promoting Reasoned Argumentation, Problem-solving and Learning during small-group work / R. M. Gillies, A. Khan // Cambridge Journal of Education. - 2009. - № 39 (1). - P. 7-27.
11. Billig M. Arguing and Thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. - 325 p.
12. Guillem S. M. Argumentation, metadiscourse and social cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication // Discourse & Society. - 2009. - № 20 (6). - P. 727-746.
13. Steffensen S. V. Care and conversing in dialogical systems // Language Science. - 2012. - № 34. - P. 513-531.
14. Maturana H. R. Biology of Cognition // Biological Computer Laboratory Research Report BCL 9.0, Urbana. - IL: University of Illinois, 1970.
15. Kolmogorova A. V. "Mamin jazyk": praktiki materinskogo obshhenija v kontekste raspredeljonnoj modelija jazyka i kognicii. - M.: Flinta-Nauka, 2013. - 168. s.
16. Cowley S. J. (Ed) Distributed Language. - John Benjamins Publishing, 2011. - 211 p.
17. Mesto lingvisticheskih issledovanij v kontekste teorii raspredelennoj kognicii v kognitivnom analize jazyka // Kognitivnye issledovanija jazyka. Vyp. XXIII: Lingvisticheskie tehnologii v gumanitarnyh issle-dovanijah / Otv. red. Vyp. V. Z. Dem'jankov. M.: In-t jazykoznanija RAN; Tambov: Izdatel'skij dom TGU im. G. R. Derzhavina, 2015. - S. 73-81.
18. Billig M. Political Communication // Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology / D. O. Sears et al (Eds.). - NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. - P. 222-250.
19. Basler R. P. Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio, on September 17, 1859 // Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. - New Brunswick, N. J: Rutgers University Press, 1953. - Vol. 3. - P. 462. Available at: http: //name. umdl. umich. edu/lincoln3
20. Hutchins E. Distributed cognition // The International Encyclopedia of the Social and behavioral Sciences. - Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. - P. 2068-2072.
21. Maturana H. R. Autopoesis: The Realization of the Living / H. R. Maturana, F. J. Varela // Springer Science & Business Media. - 1991. - Vol. 42. - 146 p.
22. Kravchenko A. V. How Humberto Maturana's Biology of Cognition Can Revive the Language Sciences // Constructivist Foundations. - 2011. - № 6 (3). - P. 352-362. Available at http: //www. univie. ac. at/ constructivism/journal/6/3/352. (Accessed date: 20.02.2016).
23. Levinson D. Licensing of Negative Polarity Particles Yet, Anymore, Either and Neither // Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and the Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford University. - 2008.
24. Charter D., Coglan T. Merkel Snubs Putin's Military Parade in protest over Ukraine // The Times, 2015, March 12. Available at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news (Accessed date: 20.02.2016).
25. Makhonin A. Merkel Rejects Putin's WWII Victory Day Invite Over Ukraine // Moscow Times, 2015, March 11. Available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com (Accessed date: 20.02.2016).
^■Mir^r
