CC BY
83
YffK 811.11-112
DO110.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.83-89
LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTATION STRATEGIES IN PERSUASIVE DISCOURSE
K.V. Gudkova
St. Petersburg State University (St. Petersburg, Russia)
Abstract: The aim of the paper is to investigate some of the features of argumentation strategies employed by participants in persuasive discourse. The analysis of argumentation is conducted from the perspective of practical reasoning. People are not only constantly exposed to argumentation in their everyday life but also make use of argumentation strategies themselves in order to influence other people's behaviour and beliefs. Verbal disputes are often felt to be trivial and what wording is used in persuasive communication seems to be of little or no importance. However, the ambiguity of language interferes with effective argumentation when both parties to a verbal dispute use the same word differently. The paper mainly focuses on language use in argumentation and raises language awareness in persuasive communication.
Key words: persuasive discourse, argumentation, ad hominem arguments, unclearness, vague language, communication principle.
For citation:
Gudkova, K.V. (2017), Linguistic analysis of argumentation strategies in persuasive discourse. Communication Studies, No. 4 (14), pp. 83-89. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.83-89. (in Russian)
About the author:
Gudkova Kira Vladimirovna, Dr., Associate Professor of the English Department Contact information:
Postal address: 11, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: gudkovakira@bk.ru Received: June 23, 2017
Persuasion is one of the central categories in human life and activity. The importance of the investigation of persuasive strategies is rooted in the fact that people tend to act on the basis of their own beliefs and opinions. It should be noted that persuasive strategies are acquired and mastered unconsciously, everyone knows and uses them intuitively but most people do not have any
© K.B. fydmea, 2017
clear theoretical knowledge about these strategies [Ivin 2007: 150]. It is necessary to point out that a lot of effort is required to look at familiar things from a different perspective. Over the past years a lot of papers have been published that focus on the category of persuasion from different perspectives. Argumentation theory which is a rich interdisciplinary area of research spanning philosophy, communication studies, linguistics and psychology and which studies the ways to influence the beliefs or direct the behavior of others can help to fill this gap. The most prominent works that contributed to the study of argumentation in terms of linguistics are the works by the representatives of Amsterdam's university [Eemeren & Grootendorst 1992; Eemeren et al. 1993; Eemeren 2001, 2010]. The analysis of argumentative strategies can de also found in [Baranov 1990, 2007]. The communicative failures caused by the use of vague language expressions are described in [Ermakova, Zemskaya 1993]. The manipulative aspects of persuasion are analysed in [Chernyavskaya 2006; Kara-Murza 2006].
It seems essential to emphasize that people consciously or unconsciously want the judgments they make and upon which they base their behaviour to be true. The truthfulness of the judgments means that the proposition of the judgment presents an adequate reflection of factual reality. One of the main aims of our reasoning is the assuredness in the truthfulness of our judgments. We persuade people and ourselves trying to make our point of view accepted.
K. Rybacki & D. Rybacki define argumentation as a "form of instrumental communication relying on reasoning and proof to influence belief or behaviour through the use of spoken or written messages". Argumentation is a form of instrumental communication as it focuses on the audience [Rybacki K., Ry-backi D. 1991: 2].
It is sufficient to note that argumentation as a form of communication is characterized by certain features: such as the subject and the object of the communication, moreover, it possesses its own aims and goals and employs certain methods to achieve these goals. The subject of argumentation activity is the person, or the arguer, who defends some proposition and puts forward arguments while doing so. The object of argumentation is the person(s], or the recipient, whom the arguer tries to persuade in the truthfulness of the proposition, in the sensibility of performing an action or in the correctness of an evaluation. The collective goal of argumentation as a communicative activity is to influence the beliefs of others and thus to direct their behaviour. This goal can be expressed in particular tasks such as the following: to create a certain belief, to arise emotions, to encourage some actions etc. The methods of argumentation as a communicative activity are the verbal expressions that the arguer employs to persuade the recipient. It seems essential to emphasize that argumentation is mainly a verbal communication and the important aspect of this communication is the language the arguer uses. He or she must put what they mean into words as clearly and unequivocally as possible, so that the recipient is enabled to determine their intention [Eemeren, Grootendorst 1992: 196].
According to argumentation theory, there are two main ways or strategies to persuade the recipient: ad rem arguments or arguments that use reasoning to defend or refute the proposition and ad hominem arguments when the arguer attacks the personal qualities of the other party by portraying him as stupid, bad, unreliable etc. In a direct personal attack, it is assumed that someone who is stupid or bad cannot have a correct opinion and his argument cannot be accepted. It should always be born in mind that in any conversational framework in order to achieve collaborative goals participants must observe the rules of polite conversation that exclude personal attacking the recipient. However, in reality ad hominem arguments or direct personal attacks are widespread and turned out to be rather effective. D. Walton points out that ad hominem arguments that attack different aspects of character are extremely powerful in political discussions as for people, in many instances, there are "no other reasons to believe in the speaker's words and promises except for his consistency and moral integrity" [Walton, Reed, Macagno 2008: 141].
As has been mentioned earlier argumentation is a verbal communication and people who are communicating with each other observe certain rules that constitute a general principle governing all verbal communication, the Principle of Communication:
Be clear, honest, efficient and to the point [Eemeren, Grootendorst 1992:
50].
The communicators are responsible for achieving mutual understanding thus their wording must comply with the rule of clarity. But this does not mean that all intentions have to be stated with complete explicitness. In practice, the communicators use their background knowledge and understand from the context what is meant. As a rule, the wording is not inherently comprehensible or not, but it is comprehensible to certain interpreters. As F. van Eemeren points out "comprehensibility is a relative concept" [Eemeren, Grootendorst 1992: 196]. The ambiguity of wording does not prevent the success of communication. In ordinary communication, people often violate one or more of the rules without having any intention to give up the Principle of Communication, but breaking a rule of communication will influence the interaction. Unclear and ambiguous language can have direct negative consequences for the communication.
It should be added that lexical ambiguity, in which a word has more than one meaning is familiar to us from everyday discourse and does not interfere with successful communication. In everyday discourse, people do not even note this type of ambiguity. But in persuasive discourse lexical ambiguity can be a source of manipulation. We cannot perform our argumentative activity as the character from the novel "Through The Looking Glass" Humpty Dumpty by L. Carroll who uses ambiguous language and breaks the first rule of Communication Principle:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'
In compliance with the first rule of Communication Principle in argumentative communication people must not use the words and expressions that are confusingly ambiguous. In persuasive discourse when the arguer tries to make the other party to accept their point of view the use of clear language becomes very important. In practice, it often happens that people make words mean different things without having intention to do so. And this does not always lead to a failure in communication, for even in the vaguest wording there may be things that some listeners can understand.
In this connection it should be noted that there are four main types of unclearness in the language use: 1. implicitness of the communicative function, when the proposition is not stated explicitly which may lead to the wrong assessment by the recipient; 2. unfamiliarity of words and expressions that arises when the arguer uses the words that are unfamiliar to the other party; 3. referential indefiniteness when the arguer uses the word whose referent is not clear to the other party; 4. vagueness of the word that the arguer uses. This results from semantic ambiguity when people give different meanings to the same word [Eemeren, Grootendorst 1992: 199].
The points made above can be illustrated by the analysis of argumentation strategies in persuasive discourse. The task of the analysis is, firstly, to show that in persuasive discourse all elements of argumentation can be elicited and, secondly, to investigate not only the arguments (argumentative strategies] but also the language used by the participants.
As an example of persuasive discourse the conversation from the book "Winnie-the-Pooh" is taken. The characters of the story want to get rid of an unknown animal Kanga that has come to live in their forest. The animal seems strange and causes fears as it behaves in a strange way, namely it carries its child in a pocket. Rabbit develops a plan of actions and submits it to a discussion with Pooh. Rabbit wants his plan to be accepted and acts as the arguer. Pooh performs the role of the recipient.
"The best way," said Rabbit, "would be this. The best way would be to steal baby Roo and hide him, and then when Kanga says, 'Where's baby Roo?' we say 'Aha!'"
"Aha!" said Pooh, practicing. "Aha! Aha!.. Of course," he went on, "we could say 'Aha!' even if we hadn't stolen Baby Roo."
"Pooh," said Rabbit kindly, "you haven't any brain."
"I know,"said Pooh humbly.
"We say 'Aha!' so that Kanga knows that we know where Baby Roo is. "Aha!' means 'We'll tell you where Baby Roo is, if you promise to go away from the Forest and never come back.'Now don't talk while I think."
Pooh went into a corner and tried saying 'Aha!' in that sort of voice. Sometimes it seemed to him that it did mean what Rabbit said, and sometimes it
seemed to him that it didn't. "I suppose it's just practice," he thought. "I wonder if Kanga will have to practise too so as to understand it."
The analysis of the discourse from the point of view of argumentation theory can be presented in the following way. Rabbit argues that some actions should be taken to change the existing state of affairs. The proposition of Rabbit's argumentation is the proposition of policy that contemplates a potential course of action: The best way would be to steal baby Roo and hide him. Arguing a policy proposition calls for some backing and in order to support the proposition Rabbit puts forward the following argument: then we say 'Aha!'. The wording of the argument breaks the first rule of Communication Principle as it employs the word whose referent is not clear and also the word itself is vague. The recipient Poo cannot identify the meaning of the word and logically remarks, or in terms of argumentation theory puts forward an argument, that we could say 'Aha!' even if we hadn't stolen Baby Roo for he puts his own meaning in this word. His argumentation is ad rem argumentation as his argument can be considered as an argument to common sense. However, in terms of Communication Principle the rule of communication is violated and this leads to a communication failure that results from unclear language. The communicators mean different things by the same word and it is important to remember that meanings are in what communicators put into words, not in words themselves. Instead of trying to repair the break in communication Rabbit employs ad homi-nem argument Pooh you haven't any brain that turns out to be very powerful in everyday communication, because it is very difficult to refute direct personal attacks. Ad hominem arguments are common types of arguments used in everyday discourse. The form of this type of argument can be represented as this:
Somebody has not any brain (somebody is a bad person]. Therefore, his or her argument should not be accepted.
Pooh does not know how to refute the ad hominem argument and agrees, "I know," said Pooh humbly. It should be noted that Rabbit is a skillful communicator as he resorts to explaining the meaning of the word: Aha!' means 'We'll tell you where Baby Roo is, if you promise to go away from the Forest and never come back. Rabbit complies with the second rule of Communication Principle: be honest, and he honestly wants to be understood properly. He clarifies the vague meaning of the word in question. It is worth mentioning that explanations and clarifications are important part of argumentative discourse and it is the responsibility of the arguer to explicit the meaning that is not clear to the audience. But even after Rabbit's clarification, the meaning of the vague expression is still not clear to Pooh. Sometimes it seemed to him that it did mean what Rabbit said, and sometimes it seemed to him that it didn't. It is understandable as the word Hha' is not only vague but also is referentially indefinite. The context and the situation does not provide sufficient information to avoid wrong interpretation since Rabbit makes the word mean what he wants it to mean. And it is not clear whether the proposition will be understood by the
other party, at whom the proposition of policy is aimed and whose actions should be changed in a desirable way for the communicators. Pooh quite reasonably wonders I wonder if Kanga will have to practise too so as to understand it And he asks the right question for language is the vehicle for communicating ideas. The choice of language influences the ability of the other party to understand and correctly interpret the meaning the arguer puts in the proposition to be defended.
It follows that in the above argumentative discourse all typical features are presented: the arguer, the recipient, the goal of argumentation (to encourage some actions] and the verbal arguments such as ad rem arguments and ad hominem arguments. Such are the preliminary observations concerning language awareness in persuasive discourse. Since language is the vehicle of an argument's meaning the main concern is how to use it in constructing arguments. It is worth mentioning that not all discourse is argumentative but any discourse has some argumentative features. The importance of the right wording cannot be overestimated. For vague words can lead to argumentation fallacies and thus can be the source of communicative failures and misunderstandings between the participants. In any use of language it is important to remember that meanings are in people, not in words. Remembering this is especially important if we use language to alter belief or behaviour.
References
Baranov, A.N. (2007), Lingvisticheskaya ekspertiza teksta: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i praktika [Linguistic expertise of a text: theoretical grounds], Moscow, Flinta Publ., Nauka Publ., 592 p. (in Russian) Baranov, A.N. (1990), Chto nas ubezhdaet? (Rechevoe vozdeistvie i obschestvennoe soznanie [What convinces us? (Speech impact and public conscience)], Moscow, Znanie Publ., 63 p. (in Russian) Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2006), Diskurs vlasti i vlast' diskursa. Problemy rechevogo voz-deistviya [Discourse of power and power of discourse. Problems of speech impact], Moscow, Nauka Publ., 136 p. (in Russian) Eemeren, F.H. van (2010), Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publ. Co, 308 p. Eemeren, F.H. van (2001), The State of the Art in Argumentation Theory. Eemeren, F.H. van (Ed.) Crucial Concepts in Argumentation, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 11-26.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. (1992), Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 252 p. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. (1993), Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, Tuscaloosa, AL, The University of Alabama Press, 197 p. Ermakova, O.P., Zemskaya, E.A. (1993), K postroeniyu tipologii kommunikativnykh neudach (na materiale estestvennogo russkogo dialoga) [Reconstructing typology of communication failure (based on the material of Russian dialogue)]. Russkii yazyk v ego funktsional'nykh raznovidnostyakh. Kommunikativno-pragmatiche-skii aspekt [Russian language and its functional variety. Communicative and pragmatic aspect], Moscow, Nauka Publ., pp. 30-64. (in Russian)
Ivin, A.A. (2007), Logika i teoriya argumentatsii [Logic and theory of argumentation],
Moscow, 352 p. (in Russian) Kara-Murza, S.G. (2006), Manipulyatsiya soznaniem [Mind control], Moscow, Eksmo
Publ., 864 p. (in Russian) Rybacki, K., Rybacki, D. (1991), Advocacy and opposition. An introduction to argumentation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 244 p. Walton, D., Reed, Ch., Macagno, F. (2008), Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, 456 p.
Sources
Milne, A.A. (1983), Winnie-the-Pooh, Moscow, Raduga Publ.
ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ АРГУМЕНТАТИВНЫХ СТРАТЕГИЙ В ПЕРСУАЗИВНОМ ДИСКУРСЕ
К.В. Гудкова
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет (Санкт-Петербург, Россия)
Аннотация: Анализируются аргументативные стратегии, которые используют участники персуазивного дискурса, и лингвистические особенности языка аргументации. Аргументация рассматривается с точки зрения практического рассуждения, так как в повседневной жизни люди постоянно сталкиваются с аргументацией: либо их пытаются убедить в чем-либо, либо они сами пытаются повлиять на поведение или мнения других. Отмечается, что вербальная персуазивная коммуникация часто представляется делом обыденным и мало значения придается выбору слов и выражений для представления аргументов. Тем не менее многозначность и неясность используемых выражений, когда участники коммуникации вкладывают разный смысл в одни и те же слова, может повлиять на успех коммуникации.
Ключевые слова: персуазивный дискурс, аргументация, аргумент ad hominem, неясность выражения, денотативно расплывчатое значение, принцип коммуникации.
Для цитирования:
Гудкова К.В. Лингвистический анализ аргументативных стратегий в пер-суазивном дискурсе // Коммуникативные исследования. 2017. № 4 (14). С. 83-89. DOI 10.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.83-89. (На англ. яз.).
Сведения об авторе:
Гудкова Кира Владимировна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры английского языка
Контактная информация:
Почтовый адрес: 199034, Россия, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 11 E-mail: gudkovakira@bk.ru Дата поступления статьи: 23.06.2017
