CC BY
8Логико-коммуникативная организация экономического дискурса
Кардович Ирина Кимовна,
к.филол.н., доцент; кафедра иностранных языков № 1, РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова E-mail: Kardovich.IK@rea.ru
Коробова Екатерина Владимировна,
к.пед.н., доцент; кафедра иностранных языков № 1, РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова E-mail: Korobova.EV@rea.ru
Конышева Марина Владимировна,
к.филол.н., доцент; кафедра иностранных языков № 1, РЭУ
им. Г.В. Плеханова
E-mail: Konysheva.MV@rea.ru
Зарудная Мария Владимировна,
старший преподаватель; кафедра иностранных языков № 1, РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова E-mail: Zarudnaya.MV@rea.ru
Яковлева Галина Петровна,
старший преподаватель. кафедра иностранных языков № 1, РЭУ им. Г.В. Плеханова E-mail: Yakovleva.GP@rea.ru
В статье представлены выводы о логико-коммуникативной организации текста в экономических дискурсах как одном из основных компонентов текстообразующей категории аргументации. В отличие от традиционного восприятия аргументации, как одного из способов организации дискурса, авторы трактуют аргументацию как универсальную процедуру коммуникативно-прагматического обоснования определенного знания с целью его передачи в процессе дискурсивной деятельности. В ходе исследования авторами была проведена инвентаризация текстообразующих логико-смысловых отношений, а также соответствующих средств их выражения, связывающих самостоятельные предложения (или группы предложений) в сверхфразовых единицах (СФЕ) современного экономического языка. текст. Опись велась в направлении от содержания к форме: сначала устанавливались логико-смысловые отношения (с учетом результатов исследований таких отношений в художественной прозе и результатов анализа логико-смысловой связности в художественной прозе, научно-технические тексты, выполненные ранее авторами); затем были определены средства их выражения. Функционирование логико-смысловых отношений иллюстрируется противоречащими отношениями. Для анализа использовались научно-популярные экономические тексты из The Financial Times. В результате исследования были выявлены следующие виды логико-смысловых отношений между самостоятельными предложениями в экономическом дискурсе: отношения связи, включающие аддитивные, объяснительные и перечислительные отношения; состязательные отношения, в том числе состязательно-ограничительные, состязательно-сравнительные и состязательно-уступительные отношения; причинно-следственные связи, представленные причинно-следственными и возобновляющими отношениями. Специфика логико-смысловых отношений и средств их выражения в экономических текстах по сравнению с аналогичными отношениями в научно-технических и художественных текстах отражается на их составе и частотности.
Ключевые слова: аргументация, дискурс, логико-смысловые — отношения, средства связи, сверхфразовые единицы, текст. с=
U
см см о см
Introduction
The text has repeatedly undergone research in linguistic studies. In order to determine regularities in text organization, peculiarities of its structure and ontological features, researchers distinguish common parameters of the text. In particular, I.R. Galperin defines such categories of text as informativity, integration, prospection, retrospection, continuum, modality, cohesion, completeness[6]. Describing the text as a "consciously organized result of the speech process" [6, p.3], the author emphasizes that the text, being a coherent form of communication devoid of spontaneity, is subject to certain organization regularities. Being dialectic by its nature, the text has a structural arrangement, i.e. possesses regularities of construction.
In our opinion it is the category of argumentation that allows establishing regularity and organization in text structure.
Argumentation has been extensively studied in such fields of humanitarian knowledge as cultural studies, philosophy, literary criticism, psychology and others. The same interest in this phenomenon can be observed in linguistics, with theorists and practitioners being engaged in studying a wide range of issues related to argumentation. [5, 4, 7]. Logico-philosophical, rhetorical and neo- rhetorical bases in the analysis of argumentation have made a huge contribution to its study and led to perceiving argumentation as a multidimensional, universal phenomenon; the oldest intellectual and communicative activity of a human being, inseparable from the society development.
However, despite a variety of studies devoted to the essential characteristics of argumentation as well as the mechanisms of its generation and functioning, most researchers, when defining this phenomenon, emphasize only its logical (evidentiary) constituent. Argumentation is often presented as a particular type of communication or one of the ways of organizing discourse. It is stated that the basis of argumentation is a conflict or disagreement, which may represent an unproven hypothesis, an unsolved problem or a conflict of opinions [2].
We propose to consider argumentation in a broader way - not only as a process of verbal interaction undertaken by two or more participants with the purpose of resolving the conflict of opinions, or as a method of reasoning which puts forward some position to serve as a proof for a thesis [2, p.71]. We believe that it is worth considering argumentation as the fundamental text category underlying the construction of a text and being a basis for text and discourse study.
Materials and Methods
According to G.V. Kolshansky, "it is impossible to imagine a statement that is free from the author's inten-
tion and, consequently, its influence on a partner in communication". In other words any speech statement is aimed at obtaining some result in a communicative act [11, p.141]. Persuasive impact is the goal that any participant of communication sets for themselves. In the situation of real communication, this goal can include a desire to change someone's beliefs, someone's behaviour, emotionally affect the addressee of the information, causing them to be surprised, feel fear, desire to act, to induce the communication partner to the desired action, to involve them in cooperation, lead to a long-term shift in the views and attitudes of a person.
Persuasive impact on recipients is achieved through argumentation, which we consider as a logical - communicative process used to justify a certain point of view for the purpose of its perception, understanding and (or) acceptance by an individual or collective recipient. Since only persuasion is based on a person's meaningful acceptance of ideas and information, their evaluation and analysis, we leave suggestion beyond the scope of this study.
According to the classical definition, argumentation is represented by several aspects: factual, which is actually information about the facts involved as arguments; rhetorical, that is, various forms and styles of speech and emotional impact; ethical, meaning moral acceptability or permissibility of arguments; logical, implying connectivity and a sequence of arguments, and, finally, axiological, coupled with a value selection of arguments [20].
We distinguish analogous components in the textual category of argumentation, the basic ones of which are factual, i.e. the information outline of the text; logical, represented by a logical sequence of factual information, and rhetorical, aimed at influencing the feelings and emotions of the recipient to produce the necessary persuasive effect.
This article deals with some issues of the logical aspect of argumentation. We analysed the texts of economic discourse, representing one of the most important aspects of modern world scientific knowledge.
The choice of scientific (economic) discourse texts as research material is explained by the authors' desire to define the category of argumentation as a systematic and orderly phenomenon of any text. Texts of economic discourse, like most texts of a scientific style, tend to comply with the norms of some organization, i.e. can be regarded as the so-called correct texts in which there is internal structuring, purposeful-ness and a pragmatic attitude. At the same time literary texts, although subject to some generally accepted norms of the organization, "still retain a significant share of the active unconscious, which often explodes the correctness and influences the nature of the organization of the speech utterance" [11, p.25].
Traditionally, the logical basis of argumentation has been treated in the terms of deduction - induction. Relying on the formal logic theory of evidence, researchers considered the syllogism as the main model of argument organization. Since syllogisms are characteristic of closed logical systems, their application in the description of natural speech communication seems rather artificial.
Defining the nature of argumentation in a broader sense, we consider it as an effective mechanism for achieving the goals of discourse. We view it expedient to transfer the study of the logical aspect of text argumentation to the field of pragma dialectics, the subject of which is the natural speech informal argumentation, which differs significantly from strict induction or deduction [13]. Natural speech informal argumentation, also known as presumptive argumentation, is devoid of a strict logical basis, a clearly expressed deductive or inductive structure, and can be explained by the logic of natural speech communication. The key principles of the logic of natural speech communication are the expediency and effectiveness of using a specific argumentation strategy in a particular context; relative acceptability of the recipient's conclusions, often hypothetical, logically incompletely grounded, based on assumptions; presumptive (variable) nature of the conclusions due to incompleteness or uncertainty of knowledge about the subject of discourse; presumptive inference as a basis for argumentation [10]. Although this form of inference is neither deduction nor induction, it has a certain logical structure.
The authors have analyzed the logical structure of economic texts, which features the logical aspect of textual argumentation, and will show how it functions in popular scientific economic texts from The Financial Times. The system of text-forming logical-semantic relations means of connecting independent sentences (or groups of sentences) in the superphrasal units (SPU) of the modern economic text as well as their functioning in the adversative relations are described below. Following Moskalskaya O.I., we consider the SPU as a micro text endowed with the basic regularities of text organization [15]. A total of about 300 SPUs of popular scientific texts in economic discourse have been analyzed.
In the course of the research, we conducted the inventory of logical - semantic relations and means of expressing them in economic texts. The inventory went this way: first, logical - semantic relations were established (taking into account the existing studies of these relations in fiction prose and the results of our own earlier conducted analysis of the logical - semantic coherence of scientific - technical texts [8]; then means of expressing them were defined.
It is a well-known fact that logical - semantic relations can be conveyed in two ways: explicit and implicit [24, 19]. Explicit communication is expressed with the help of specially designed language tools which, according to researchers, often play a decisive role in showing the nature of the relationship. In case of an implicit connection, such tools are missing. In this connection, the inventory of logical - semantic relations in an economic text was conducted on the basis of an explicit (formally expressed) connection.
Results and Discussion
Our research has shown that logical-semantic relations between independent sentences in the economic text are more diverse than the four basic types of rela-
C3
o
CO "O
1=1 A
—I
o
C3 t; o m o
OT
3
u o
CO
tions that are distinguished in the compound sentence: connective, adversative, cause-effect and separative [1]. Yet, in our opinion, many researchers unjustifiably expand the list of semantic types of logical-semantic relations between independent sentences of the text. Thus, I.A. Pegova, who studied fiction texts of British and American XX century authors, proposes a list of eleven semantic types [18]; N.M. Perelgut, analysing fiction texts of modern British period, distinguishes seven generalized semantic types, each of which being realized through several specific varieties [19]. We believe that some generalization of both classifications would contribute to their greater precision. In our opinion, the specificity of the semantic links between independent sentences of the text consists not so much in a large number of basic semantic types as in the variety of semantic subtypes within these types. Our research of the logical aspect of argumentation in economic texts, analysis of the existing classifications of logical-semantic relations between independent text sentences, and our own previous study of the logical - semantic coherence of scientific-technical texts, have shown that all logical-semantic relations in economic discourse can be reduced to three main types: connective, adversative and causative, in each of which, in turn, there are a number of semantic varieties.
Our list of the main types of logical-semantic relations between independent sentences in economic discourse is presented as follows: connective relations consisting of additive, explanatory and enumerative relations; adversative, including adversative-restrictive, adversative-comparative and adversative-conceding relations; and causative, represented by cause-and-effect and resuming relations. The list of semantic types of relations and their frequency (in percent) in the material of the study are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Classification and frequency of logical-semantic relations in the economic text
Logical-semantic types Logical-semantic subtypes Frequency in percent Total percent
Connective Additive 13.6 27
Explanatory 7.9
Enumerative 5.6
Adversative Adversative-restrictive 32.6 59.5
Adversative-comparative 13.5
Adversative-conceding 13.4
Causative Cause-and-effect 12.3 13.5
Resuming 1.1
100%
5 Having conducted the inventory of logical-semantic 5 relations, we defined the means of their expression.
Concerning the tools used to express logical - seS mantic relations, researchers agree that these are language units specially designed to connect sentenc-
es [17]. Universally recognized means of expressing logical-semantic relations include conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs, i.e. words formed from circumstantial and qualitative adverbs that previously defined a verb such as "thus", "therefore". In addition, means of connection include combinations of prepositions and other parts of speech - nouns, pronouns, known as "word combinations of conjunction nature" - [10]; "prepositional phrases" - [21].In our work we use the term of I.A. Pegova - "equivalent of the conjunctive adverb" (ECA).I.A. Pegova regards equivalents of conjunctive adverbs as combinations of prepositions with common nouns serving as means of connecting sentences [18, p.98].
The study of coherent texts has shown that besides words and phrases, parts of complex sentences and independent sentences may also express logical - semantic relations [16]. These are the so-called "auxiliary sentences" whose main function is binding independent sentences. For example: This means that..., This is because...
We used several methods to verify the meaning of means of expressing logical-semantic relations. First of all, transformation analysis was used, which includes transformation of two independent sentences into a complex one with the replacement of the connector. In some disputable cases, to confirm the conjunction function of the language unit, we used the criteria for the grammatization of connectors proposed by B.N. Pavlovskaya:
1. The inability of the connector to be used as a response to the interrogative transformation of the original sentence beginning with how, when, where, etc.
2. The ability of the connector to be used in the sentence, regardless of the presence in this sentence of another adverbial modifier of the same or another type, the meaning of which is incompatible with the meaning of the connector.
3. The ability of the connector with the original lexical meaning of action characteristic to be combined with a predicate that does not indicate the action.
4. The inability of the connector to be in the focus of negation.
5. The inability of the connector to be in the focus of interrogation, which is confirmed by the impossibility of interrogation transformation.
6. The absence of pre- and post- modifiers with connectors.
7. The inability of the connector to be used in the comparative construction.
8. The inability of the connector to accept the How pre-modifier in the interrogative and negative transformation of the original sentence.
9. The specific frontal position of connectors in the sentences they introduce [17].
The above criteria are used mainly to identify what ECAs mean since it is these means that are being constantly replenished with new lexical units and establishment of their exact meaning requires additional verification.
Means of expressing logical - semantic relations, that is, conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs, equivalents
of conjunctive adverbs, parts of a complex sentence (we haven't come across independent sentences as means of expressing logical - semantic relations) with the indication of their frequency are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Frequency of means of expressing logical-semantic types in the economic text
Types of logical-semantic relations Frequency in percent
Conjunctions Conjunctive adverbs Equivalents of conjunctive adverbs Parts of complex sentence
Connective 6.6 6.7 12.4 1.1
Adversative 38.3 16.9 4.5 0
Causative 10.2 0 1.1 2.2
Subtotal 55.1 23.6 18 3.3
Total 100%
Now we turn to the description of the adversative type of logical-semantic relations as well as means of its expression in the economic text. We determine its general content and illustrate semantic subtypes. If possible, we compare the results of our analysis with the data obtained from other researchers, as well as with the results of our own earlier conducted analysis of scientific-technical texts and a limited analysis of fiction texts.
Adversative Relations
Adversative relation, as a rule, is considered as the most general relation with the meaning of contrasting connected components, within which several semantic varieties can be distinguished. The analysis of our material and a review of existing classifications made it possible to distinguish three subtypes within the adversative relations: adversative-restrictive, consisting of clarifying restriction and prohibiting restriction; adversative-comparative, including comparison and opposition, and adversative-conceding relations.
Adversative-Restrictive Relations In the most general definition, adversative -restrictive relation is understood as an expression of the logical contradiction between the joined sentences. In the "Grammar of the Modern Russian Literary Language" two semantic varieties of restrictive relations are distinguished:
1) prohibiting restriction - connects sentences where there are two phenomena, the second of which interferes with the first one or eliminates its result;
2) clarifying restriction - joins sentences, the second of which denotes a phenomenon that specifies the boundaries and character of the information indicated in the previous sentence [22, p.p.671-672].
In the economic text, similar semantic varieties of adversative-restrictive relations are found. And while prohibiting restriction is represented by a few examples, the relation of clarifying restriction is very common, which coincides with our data on the scientific-technical text. It is notable that in the literary texts we studied earlier, the frequency of prohibiting restriction is close to that of clarifying restriction.
In the economic text, the relation of clarifying restriction is not only the predominant subtype of adversative relations, but also the most frequent logical-semantic relation in general. This relation is expressed by means of conjunctions: but, yet, however and implicitly. According to the observations of scholars, clarifying restriction in scientific texts has a connotation of introducing additional information clarifying and explaining the preceding content. In accordance with this, it is characteristic for sentences connected by clarifying restriction, to reproduce in the attached sentence some elements or all the preceding content. This is realized through lexical repetitions and substitutions. Such semantic reproduction, which specifies the content of the previous sentence, and, thereby, restricts it, has also been encountered in our material (example 6).
(6) However, one thing is certain: reinventing the practice of management is not going to provide your company with any short-term benefits. But that is the whole point. The road to recovery starts now, and it is therefore a perfect time to put in place the basic changes that will accelerate over time (The Financial Times, 23/ 02/2010, Bzirkinshaw, J.).
In the given example, the restriction of the content of the first sentence is based on its full semantic reproduction by the word that in the second sentence.
In the following example (example 7), the relation of clarifying constraint with the connotation of the complementary information is introduced by the conjunctive adverb yet.
(7) In practice, few companies were certain enough of the future to comply. Yet some of the Doomsday scenarios about the value of brands in the post-recession world have not come to pass(The Financial Times, 28/ 04/2010, Gapper, J.).
An interesting case is the use of the conjunction and to formalize the relation of clarifying restriction. In the following example (example 8), illustrating the relation of clarifying restriction, the conjunction and introduces a sentence that develops the previous statement and simultaneously clarifies its content, limiting it through the negative form of the predicate.
(8) Language and culture are very important for Internet access portals and search services compared with online games. And it is not easy for foreign players to do well in offering such services based on local languages (The Financial Times, 04/ 05/2010, Harding R., Hille K. and Jung-a, S.).
In some cases, restriction in the economic text is accompanied by explanation (example 9).
(9) His talents are summed up in the title of his book Spin: How to Turn the Power of the Press to your Advantage. But although most of his firm's work is for business in trouble, he is probably best known for his celebrity work (The Financial Times, 17/ 03/2010, Gar-rahan, M.).
The relation of prohibiting restriction, presented in literary texts quite widely, as a restriction based on the inconsistency of the modal plans of the joined sentences and the restriction as the elimination of the consequence of the phenomenon indicated in the previous
C3
o
CO "O
1=1 A
—I
o
C3 t; o m O OT
3
u o
CO
context, turned out to be not typical for the economic text. We came across only one instance of prohibiting restriction. In the following SPU (example 10), the second sentence contains information on the situation that opposes the implementation of the ambitions of Asian Internet companies, which were discussed in the first sentence.
(10) Rakuten's overseas push is part of a growing trend by Asian Internet companies to expand abroad as their domestic growth starts to slow down. But in spite of the ambitions of Asia's young Internet billionaires, cultural barriers and entrenched local competition may prove impossible to overcome. (The Financial Times, 04/ 05/2010, Harding R., Hille K. and Jung-a, S.).
Adversative-Comparative Relation The comparative relation is understood as the relation establishing the differences between two similar phenomena.
The description of the comparative relation is connected with the clarification of the relationships in the pair "comparison - opposition". There are several points of view on their nature and correlation in research works. Some researchers consider comparison and opposition as different types of relations [3]. Others regard comparison as a particular case of opposition [9] or vice versa opposition as a particular case of comparison [14]. On the whole it is believed that in case of comparison non-antagonistic situations are combined, and in case of opposition, there are diametrical differences of the correlated situations. In the Grammar of Modern English, the adversative relations between two sentences, the reality of one of which excludes the reality of the other, and the adversative relations under which the truth of the previous sentence is not denied, are considered under the general heading "Contrast" [21].
We also include comparison and opposition in one type of adversative relations-adversative-comparative relations, where by opposition we mean such a comparison of the two situations, when the differences between them reach the diametrical opposition. The frequency of comparison in economic texts is not high. This coincides with the data we obtained earlier on literary texts. On the contrary, as the earlier analysis of the scientific-technical text showed the relation of comparison in it is quite frequent.
Indicators of comparison in the economic text are but, by contrast, implicit connection is also possible. Below comes an example of comparison (example 11).
(11) In many cases, traditional hierarchies are still needed to capture economies of scale or to control risks. But in an increasing number of cases, we can have the economic benefits of large organizations without giving up the human benefits of small ones -
5 freedom, flexibility, motivation and creativity. (The Fi-5 nancial Times, 05/ 11/2008, Malone, T.).
Example 12 illustrates the relation of opposition in S the economic text. Like the previously described adversative relation of prohibiting restriction, opposition
is not typical for economic discourse and has been found only in a few cases. The following SPU clearly features the diametrical opposition of correlated situations.
(12) Companies start out on the right track. When things become critical, existing leadership is kicked out, new leaders come in, and the cycle starts again. But not, in the case of a few exceptional businesses. (The Financial Times, 18/ 01/2010, Stern, S.).
In economic texts we have encountered a few cases with the so-called compensatory and replacement relations, which can be regarded as comparison or opposition.
Compensatory relations mean relations between sentences denoting oppositely directed phenomena, where the information of the first sentence is compensated for by the information of the second sentence [22, p. 672]. The compensating factor is, as a rule, positive, and the compensated one - negative. In the Russian language, the meaning of compensation is conveyed by the conjunctive adverb зато. Due to the lack of a specialized indicator of compensation in the English language, to clarify the nature of this relationship, we translated the sentences with the supposed relation of compensation to the Russian language and replaced the available connector for зато. As a result of this procedure, the conjunction but was identified as a means of expressing compensatory relationship.
In the following example (example 13), the relation of compensation can be considered as a kind of opposition, when the information about a situation that does not exist in reality is compensated for by the information about the real situation. The information given in one of the two sentences is positive, while the information reported in the other is negative.
(13) There is no one single way that will deliver changes. But there are some basic principles that most managers can adopt. (The Financial Times, 21/ 01/2009, Witzel, M.).
Replacement relations mean relationships that convey two meanings:
1. The content of the subsequent sentence is an option to the previous content.
2. The content of the subsequent sentence, being a variant to the previous content, completely replaces it [17, 10].
We have encountered several cases of replacement relations with the second meaning, when the content of the first sentence is completely denied, this denial being transmitted by the negative semantics of its components, which can be regarded as opposition (example 14). The means of its expression was a conjunctive adverb instead.
(14) Back to business mergers: why waste time talking about common cultural aspects? Instead, focus on the goal. (The Financial Times, 15/ 07/2008, Ranninger, R., Moeller, S. and Hedges, N.)
Adversative-Conceding Relations
Researchers disagree on the content of concession. Some linguists note the similarity of concession with cause-effect relation [12], others emphasize the affin-
ity of concession with the semantics of adversity [19]. Some scholars regard concession as a synthesis of adversative and cause-effect relations [14]. In general, it is considered that, with conceding relations, the content of the attached sentence is opposite to the expected result from the previous one. This is called the effect of "deceived expectations." In accordance with this interpretation, concession in most research works is viewed in a broader system of adversative relations as its subtype. In our study, we adhere to this understanding of concession.
In economic texts, concession is expressed by means of conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs, ECAs: but, nevertheless, however, in spite of this. The most frequent means of expressing conceding relations in the economic text is the conjunctive adverb howev-er(example 15). The same connector is also typical for scientific - technical text. We met nevertheless and yet in the economic text only once, though they are ranked among the most frequent means of expressing concession in literary texts.
(15) Even the founders of Twitter are famous for failing to come up with a way to monetise their ingenious and additive network. However, many companies use the technology to solve business challenges, such as finding personnel, improving staff productivity and finding new customers. (The Financial Times, 15/ 01/2010, Moules, J.)
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Argumentation, being a universal way of organizing a discourse to substantiate a certain point of view of the proponent for the purpose of its perception, understanding and (or) acceptance by an individual or collective recipient, from the point of view of a logical-communicative organization of economic texts is manifested in three basic types of logical-semantic relations, connecting independent sentences of the text among themselves and within the framework of super phrasal units (SPUs) as a whole: connective, adversative and causative. The predominant type of logical-semantic relations in the economic text is adversative relations.
2. The characteristic feature of the logical-semantic relations in the economic text in comparison with these relations in the scientific-technical and literary texts is their composition and frequency.
The specificity of the composition of the relations is as follows: in the studied material we haven't come across the relations of conditioned effect, result and summation often encountered in the scientific-technical text; there was not an explicit expression of the interpretation relation. At the same, our classification includes relations of enumeration and illustration, in view of their high enough frequency, which are seldom found in literary prose.
In the economic text, the most frequent are the adversative relations, with connective relations being in the second place. On the contrary, the earlier con-
ducted analysis of the scientific-technical text showed the opposite result - the most frequent type of relations in the scientific-technical text is the connective one. In view of frequency of the semantic varieties of the main logical-semantic types, there are significant differences between similar relations in economic, scientific - technical and literary texts. Thus, in the connective type of relations in the economic and scientific-technical texts, the list of the three most frequent varieties includes enumeration and illustration (in the literary text they are extremely rare). In the adversative type, in the economic and scientific-technical texts, the relation of clarifying constraint prevails over a very small proportion of prohibiting restriction (in literary prose these relations occur approximately in equal amounts). The relation of comparison, which does not have a high frequency in the economic and literary texts, occurs quite often in scientific-technical prose.
3. Means of expressing logical-semantic relations in the economic text are conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs, equivalents of conjunctive adverbs, as well as parts of a complex sentence. Of these, the most frequent indicators of relations are conjunctions.
Specificity of the means of logical-semantic coherence in the economic text is, first of all, in their quantitative distribution. In the economic text, the most active explicator of logical-semantic relations are conjunctions with a small percentage of conjunctive adverbs and equivalents of conjunctive adverbs, which completely contradicts our data on the scientific- technical discourse, where dominate conjunctive adverbs and equivalents of conjunctive adverbs with a rare use of conjunctions.
Литература
1. Barkhudarov, L.S. Schteling, D.A. (1973). English Language Grammar. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 15
2. Brutyan, G.A., (1984). Reasoning. Yerevan, Armenia: AN ARM. 6
3. Darginavichene, I. Yu. (1987). Adversative asyndeton in modern English. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 22
4. Dashkova, S. Yu. (2004). Logical and pragmatic analysis of arguments in the academic text [material in French and Russian]. Kemerovo, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 3
5. F. H. van Eemeren, Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialected approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2
6. Galperin, I.R. (1981). Textasasubjectoflinguistic-study. Moscow, Russia: Science. 1
7. Hitchcock D., Verheij B. (eds) (2007). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 4
8. Kardovich, I.K. (1990). Scientific-technical text connectedness. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 12
C3
о
CO "O
1=1 А
—I
о
C3 t; о m О от
З
ы о со
о с
U см
9. Kharitonova, I.K. (1984). Concessive-adversative relationship and its medium in modern English (versus Ukraininian). Kiev, Ukraine: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 23
10. Kobrina, N.A. (1953). Syntax links between individual sentences in contemporary English. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 18
11. Kolshanskiy, G.V. (1984). Communicative functions andlinguistic structure. Moscow, Russia: Institute of Linguistic. 7
12. Komarova, V.V. (1975). Conjunctionsasamean-sofsentencestructure compression (based on the use of causal semantics conjunctions in different language systems. Alma-Ata, Qazaqstan: (Unpublished doctoral thesis).25
13. Kukikova, O.V. (2011). Linguo-pragmatic foundations of argumentation theory. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 9
14. Lyapon, M.V. (1986). Conceptualstructureofcom-poundsentenceandtext. Moscow, Russia: Sci-ence.24
15. Moskalskaya, O.I. (1981). Text grammar. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 11
16. Novitskaya, I.M. (1973). To the syntaxis of coherent text (based on the German). Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 20
17. Pavlovskaya, V.N. Grammaticalisation of lexical units as a link of sentences in the text. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 17
18. Pegova, I.A. Conjunctive adverbs and conjunctive adverbs' equivalents as a means of conjunction of independent sentence in contemporary English (New England period). (1982). Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 16
19. Perelgut, N.M. (1983). Development of English-language logic-semantic communication tools, Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 14
20. Philosofical encyclopedic dictionary (1989). Moscow, Russia: Encyclopedic dictionary. 8
21. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G.A. (1982). University Grammar of English. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 19
22. Schvedova, N. Yu. Grammar of modern literary Russian. Moscow, Russia: Science. 21
23. Toulmin S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England. 5
24. Veyze, A.A. (1985). Reading, summarizing and abstracting of foreign text. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 13
25. Walton D.N. (1996). Argument Schemes for Presumptive reasoning. NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10
LOGICAL-COMMUNICATIVE ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC DISCOURSE
Kardovich I.K., Korobova E.V., Konysheva M.V., Zarudnaya M.V., Yakovleva G.P.
REU them. G.V. Plekhanov
This article presents findings on the logical-communicative text organization in economic discourses one of the main components of the text-forming category of argumentation. In contrast to the traditional perception of argumentation as one of the ways of discourse
arrangement, the authors interpret argumentation as a universal procedure of a communicative-pragmatic justification of a certain piece of knowledge in order to transfer it in the process of discursive activity. In the course of the research, the authors conducted an inventory of text-forming logical-semantic relations, as well as corresponding means of their expression, that connect independent sentences (or groups of sentences) in the superphrasal units (SPU) of modern economic text. The inventory was conducted in the direction from the content to the form: first, logical-semantic relations were established (taking in consideration the results of the studies of such relations in fiction prose literature and the results of the analysis of logical-semantic coherence in scientific-technical texts performed earlier by the authors); next, means to express them were determined. The functioning of logical-semantic relations is illustrated by adversative relations. Popular scientific economic texts from The Financial Times were used for the analysis. As a result of the research, the following types of logical-semantic relations between independent sentences in economic discourse were revealed: connective relations, including additive, explanatory and enumerative relations; adversative relations, including adversative-restrictive, adversative-comparative and adversative-conceding relations; causative relations, represented by cause-and-effect and resuming relations. Specificity of logical - semantic relations and means of expressing them in economic texts, in comparison with similar relations in scientific-technical and fiction texts is reflected in their composition and frequency.
Keywords: argumentation, discourse, logical-semantic relations, means of connection, superphrasal units, text.
References
1. Barkhudarov, L.S. Schteling, D.A. (1973). English Language Grammar. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 15
2. Brutyan, G.A., (1984). Reasoning. Yerevan, Armenia: AN ARM. 6
3. Darginavichene, I. Yu. (1987). Adversative asyndeton in modern English. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 22
4. Dashkova, S. Yu. (2004). Logical and pragmatic analysis of arguments in the academic text [material in French and Russian]. Kemerovo, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 3
5. F. H. van Eemeren, Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialected approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2
6. Galperin, I.R. (1981). Textasasubjectoflinguisticstudy. Moscow, Russia: Science. 1
7. Hitchcock D., Verheij B. (eds) (2007). Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. 4
8. Kardovich, I.K. (1990). Scientific-technical text connectedness. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 12
9. Kharitonova, I.K. (1984). Concessive-adversative relationship and its medium in modern English (versus Ukraininian). Kiev, Ukraine: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 23
10. Kobrina, N.A. (1953). Syntax links between individual sentences in contemporary English. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 18
11. Kolshanskiy, G.V. (1984). Communicative functions andlinguistic structure. Moscow, Russia: Institute of Linguistic. 7
12. Komarova, V.V. (1975). Conjunctionsasameansofsentences-tructure compression (based on the use of causal semantics conjunctions in different language systems. Alma-Ata, Qazaqstan: (Unpublished doctoral thesis).25
13. Kukikova, O.V. (2011). Linguo-pragmatic foundations of argumentation theory. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 9
14. Lyapon, M.V. (1986). Conceptualstructureofcompoundsen-tenceandtext. Moscow, Russia: Science. 24
15. Moskalskaya, O.I. (1981). Text grammar. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 11
16. Novitskaya, I.M. (1973). To the syntaxis of coherent text (based on the German). Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 20
17. Pavlovskaya, V.N. Grammaticalisation of lexical units as a link of sentences in the text. Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 17
18. Pegova, I.A. Conjunctive adverbs and conjunctive adverbs' equivalents as a means of conjunction of independent sentence in contemporary English (New England period). (1982). Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 16
19. Perelgut, N.M. (1983). Development of English-language logic-semantic communication tools, Moscow, Russia: (Unpublished doctoral thesis). 14
20. Philosofical encyclopedic dictionary (1989). Moscow, Russia: Encyclopedic dictionary. 8
21. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G.A. (1982). University Grammar of English. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 19
22. Schvedova, N. Yu. Grammar of modern literary Russian. Moscow, Russia: Science. 21
23. Toulmin S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England. 5
24. Veyze, A.A. (1985). Reading, summarizing and abstracting of foreign text. Moscow, Russia: Higher School. 13
25. Walton D.N. (1996). Argument Schemes for Presumptive reasoning. NJ, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10
