CC BY
0ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА PHILOLOGY. THEORETICAL, APPLIED AND COMPARATIVE
LINGUISTICS
Научная статья Филологические науки
УДК 81-114.2 https://doi.org/10.26907/2658-3321.2023.6.3.431-441
ПРИНЯТИЕ ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ В АРГУМЕНТАТИВНОМ ДИСКУРСЕ
Шувалов Д.Ю.1, Немет Т. Эникё2
Университет Сегеда, Венгрия 1dns_shv@icloud.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-6371 2nemethen@hung. u-szeged. hu, https://orcid. org/0000-0001-8559- 7229
Аннотация. Широко известно, насколько важна способность принимать перспективу (ПП) (perspective-taking) в социальном взаимодействии. Процесс аргументации, являясь разновидностью социального взаимодействия, также требует от спорящих использования ПП. Цель настоящего исследования — продемонстрировать функции когнитивной способности человека принимать точку зрения других в аргументативном дискурсе. Исследование основано на интервью, проведенном Ричардом Докинзом с Венди Райт. Оба участника интервью представляют диаметрально противоположные взгляды на теорию эволюции и разумный замысел. При анализе интервью в рамках теории аргументации прагма-диалектический подход взят за основу для установления и различия логических заблуждений (fallacy), а также их интерпретаций. Кроме того, мысленная реконструкция апелляции к эмоциям (appeal to emotion) помогла определить функцию ПП при использовании ошибочной аргументации как частного случая. В результате было продемонстрировано, что способность ПП выполняет как минимум две функции в процессе аргументации: общую (концептуальную) функцию - базовые механизмы поддержания коммуникации; и дифференциальную (операционную) функцию - в предоставлении аргументов в целом и в использовании ошибочных аргументов в частности, как, например, в случае апелляции к эмоциям.
Ключевые слова: лингвистика; принятие перспективы; аргументация; прагма-диалектика; логическая ошибка; апелляция к эмоциям
Для цитирования: Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе. Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023;6(3): 431-441. (In Eng.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2658-3321.2023.6.3.431-441
Original article Philology studies
https://doi.org/10.26907/2658-3321.2023.6.3.431-441 PERSPECTIVE-TAKING IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE Shuvalov D.Iu.1, Eniko Nemeth T.2
Szeged University, Hungary 1dns_shv@icloud.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-6371 2nemethen@hung.u-szeged.hu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8559-7229
Abstract. It is widely known how important perspective-taking (PT) ability is in social interaction. The argumentation process, being a kind of social interaction, also requires the use of PT from disputants. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the functions of the human cognitive ability to take the perspective of others in argumentative discourse. The study is based on an interview conducted by Richard Dawkins with Wendy Wright. Both interlocutors present diametrically op-
ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ
ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе
Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023; 6(3): 431-441
posed views on the theory of evolution and intelligent design. To analyse the interview in the framework of argumentation theory, Pragma-dialectics served as a method for establishing and distinguishing fallacies and their interpretation. Mental reconstruction of the appeal to emotion fallacy assisted to identify the function of PT in using the fallacious argument. As a result, it has been illustrated that the PT capability has at least two functions in the argumentation process: the General (Conceptual) function — basic mechanisms to maintain communication; and the Differential (Operational) function — in providing arguments in general and in utilising fallacious arguments, i.e., appeal to emotion fallacy.
Keywords: linguistics; perspective-taking; argumentation; pragma-dialectics; fallacy; appeal to emotion
For citation: Shuvalov D.Iu., Eniko Nemeth T. Perspective-taking in Argumentative Discourse. Kazan Linguistic Journal. 2023;6(3): 431-441. https://doi.ors/10.26907/2658-3321.2023.6.3.431-441
Although PT ability is being scrutinised in various scientific realms, no attention is given to the functioning of PT in the argumentation process. In the present paper, my goal is to demonstrate the functions of PT playing role in the argumentation process on the examples of the argumentation peculiarities and especially the appeal to emotion fallacy.
The study is based on an interview conducted by Richard Dawkins with Wendy Wright, which is part of the television documentary "The Genius of Charles Darwin" [1]. The pragma-dialectical approach was taken as a method for analysing the interview, establishing and distinguishing fallacies and their interpretation. Mental reconstruction of a fallacious argument, namely the appeal to emotions fallacy, aimed to illustrate the role of perspectivity in providing arguments.
Before speculating about PT in the light of the argumentation theory, I must identify their commonalities. PT intersects with the argumentation process in at least two points:
1) PT serves as a basis for all human interactions and can be broadly defined as ability to comprehend and predict thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and mental states of others [2]. So, the argumentation process being a kind of social interaction must require the presence of the PT ability of the interactants. Or better to say, the PT ability must be a foundation of the argumentation process.
2) Another point that rather ensues from the first one than exists on its own comes down to the notion of success of the communication. If the first intersection point seems to be obvious, the second one needs more clarification. Both the PT phenomenon and the argumentation theory include the notion of success of communication but from different angles. For example, if we assume that the argumentation process is a type of verbal communication and, consequently, the phenomenon of social interaction, then the success of that kind of social interaction can be determined by the degree of PT ability of the communicators. Verbal communication is successful if the communicative partners can take into account their partners' perspective and alter their egocentric perspective to a necessary extent i.e., communicative partners manage to form a shared perspective [3, p. 71]. In that case, PT faculty serves as a maintaining tool of the whole communication process and as we will observe later - a basis for utilising arguments.
To expose the notion of success in the argumentation process I must turn to an appropriate investigation apparatus - the theory of argumentation. Taking into consideration that interview being analysed has a difference of opinions and two confronting parties, I will regard this discourse as an argumentative one. Therefore, this study is conducted in the framework of the argumentation theory which studies how humans infer conclusions based on inputs (or in other words, premises) through logical reasoning and aimed at convincing a reasonable listener or a reader of the acceptability of the provided standpoint [4, p. 2].
Eemeren and Grootendorst proposed a modern approach in investigation of argumentation - the pragma-dialectics. This approach considers argumentation as a complex speech act [5]. Pragma-dialectics focuses on the argumentation process taking into account the complexity and dynamics of the human communication phenomenon: verbal, contextual, situational, and other pragmatic factors [6, p. 13]. The approach is based on the so-called Rules of a Critical Discussion on the ground of which the quality evaluation process of the argumentative discourse can be
ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ
ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе
Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023; 6(3): 431-441
performed [7, p. 208]. From Eemeren's position [7, p. 104], any violations of the Rules of a Critical Discussion are attempts to nip a discussion must be regarded as fallacies.
Fallacies hinder argumentation, but the extension of pragma-dialectics in rhetoric permits some for successful argumentative moves. During the argumentative conversation discussants balance between reasonableness and effectiveness by strategic manoeuvring [8, p. 40]. Reasonableness is firmed by the aforementioned dialectical standards, and effectiveness stands for the achievement of the particular rhetorical goals and does not necessarily include persuasiveness [8, p. 40; 9, p. 383]. It means that some argumentative moves, including fallacies, can assist to achieve rhetorical goals at any stage of the argumentative discussion and thus, can be successful.
Keeping in mind that all forms of social language use require the efforts of interactants to take the perspectives of each other, Dawkins should take into account Wright's perspective and the perspective of the audience while providing his arguments. Wright, in her turn, should take into consideration Dawkins' perspective and the perspective of the audience while providing her arguments. With attention to the aforesaid, let us turn to examples (1) and (2).
At the very beginning of the interview Dawkins asked Wright:
(1) R. Dawkins (3:07):
Where did you study science?
(2) W. Wright's response (3:09 - 3:14):
Well see that's the point.
Scientists are now claiming that they're
the only ones that can speak on this issue.
To the question in (1), Dawkins and the audience rather expected to be informed about the place or institution where Wright was graduated from but she instead indirectly avoided responding. Doing so in (2), Wright might have made it clear that she does not have any degree in any science or she would not like to
provide an adequate answer for some reasons. However, it is worth noticing that there is a possibility that Dawkins knew that Wright did not have any degree in science and therefore he could have had other intentions, for instance, to humiliate Wright's credibility. Thus, Dawkins, willing to convince her, should explain things taking her perspective. In the following examples (3) and (4) we can observe a special linguistic marker (enumeration) that illustrates the attempts to adopt the opponent's perspective.
(3) Dawkins (11:06 - 11:26):
about intermediates in human fossils and we've got various species of Australopithecus for example and these are some Australopithecus are intermediate between others and ourselves then you've got Homo habilis Homo erectus these are intermediate between Australopithecus which was an older species and Homo sapiens which is a younger species I mean why don't you see those as intermediates?
In (3), Dawkins gives an answer to Wright's question about the lack of evidence in favour of the biological Theory of Evolution. The detailed enumeration and explanation of the intermediaries with their names and arrangement in the evolutionary tree might be a piece of evidence of Dawkins' endeavour to adopt Wright's perspective. If Dawkins had spoken with, say, a scientist in biology he would have rather used special terms without explanation because they would have been clear for both sides.
Another interesting example appeared later in the interview:
(4) (23:30 - 24:07):
Dawkins: I don't want to be respected for my
ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023; 6(3): 431-441
beliefs I want you to respect the facts I want you to look at the facts don't respect me
I don't want respect I want you to go to museums and look at the facts and don't believe what you've been told that there is no evidence just Dawkins: go and look at the evidence Wright: yes and I would say...
Dawkins: it's not funny I mean really go-go I've told you about how many fossils you can learn the evolution of the horse you can go and look at the evolution of the early mammals you can go and look at the evolution of fish you can go look at the transition from fish to land living amphibians 'n reptiles any of those things you'll find in any good museum just open your eyes and look at the fact
In the current extract, Dawkins is criticized by Wright on the supposition that evolutionists do not tend to respect the beliefs of the creationists whilst the latter respects the beliefs of the evolutionists. Then Dawkins claims that the bottom line is not to respect beliefs but to respect the facts which are in the museums. For Dawkins, fossils are among the proves pro Evolution Theory and here we can also observe the detailing mentioned above. He started to enumerate the types of fossils to convince Wright that the fossils exist. The naming here is supposed to have stronger power of convincing. At the same time, Dawkins tends to induce the audience which has a presumption of unawareness about the evidence in favour of the Theory of Evolution. By saying presumption of unawareness, I mean that it is difficult for Dawkins to be certain that the whole audience is familiar with the scientific pieces of evidence pro Evolution Theory. In other words, the audience is presumably or by default unaware of the particular fossils. Hence, it is plausible to presuppose that Dawkins took the perspective of the audience and Wright and altered his way of argumentation by applying elaboration.
Let us turn attention to the next excerpt of Wendy Wright: (5) Wright (0:44 - 0:59):
if we believe that human beings were created out of love
that is by loving creator and has given
each one of us not only a material body
but a spirit and a soul we then are more
likely to treat other people with
respect and dignity
The argument that Wright employs in example (5), itself belongs to the appeal to emotion fallacy, since it is directed to evoke negative feelings of the audience towards Dawkins and the theory he defends. Incidentally, appeals to emotion sometimes have strong convincing power because mind-emotion regulation is quite challenging due to its instinctive nature [10, p. 122]. This argumentative tool is even used in courts [11], where impartiality should seem to be inseverable from the argumentation.
The implicature of the Wright's argument is that if we were not created by God out of love then we would treat each other with cruelty and humiliation. To put it differently - if people were not created by God there is no possibility to treat each other with respect and dignity because we would solely consist of a material body that included neither a soul nor a spirit which allows us to treat each other with respect and dignity. Presumably, Dawkins as a human being would rather want to be treated with respect and dignity and thus, is expected to change his attitude towards the Theory of Evolution because it excludes the concept of God who is responsible for putting the soul into the body. At the same time, this appeal to emotion applied by Wright is directed to the audience as well. Everybody is expected to have a wish to be treated with respect and dignity. Thus, some negative emotions might be evoked in such a situation where people have a feeling of not being respected. Generally, the purpose of exploiting the audience's emotions is to play on the prejudices of the audience and damage the opponent's credibility and thus eliminating him as a serious opponent in the eyes of the audience [7, p. 134]. Dawkins, being an opponent, took a hostile position regarding Intelligent Design which is supported by Wright. So, a possible rhetorical task of Wright is to expose Dawkins as a person who supports
ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023; 6(3): 431-441
treating people without respect and dignity. Additionally, since the argumentum ad populum fallacy (Appeal to Emotions) serves to make people consider themselves involved in the discussion the audience might start to feel negative emotions towards Dawkins and towards the theory he endorses.
The whole rhetorical strategy to play with human emotions is a business of exploiting affective PT, which allows us to infer, recognise and predict someone's emotions and feelings. Affective PT serves to predict the emotional reaction of the audience and Wright's opponent to the argument. Wright can to some extent adopt the perspective of others but she cannot wholly replace her own initially egocentric perspective. The egocentric perspective allows people to distinguish their own "I" within others and thus compare their own personalities with other people. It means that Wright evaluates the possible success of the argument as though the argument was provided to her personally. The possible mental representation of the fallacy at the stage can be reconstructed as follows:
13.
Therefore, other people more likely will not accept the concept that can cause unpleasant feelings for them
Figure 1 Possible mental reconstruction of the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy
Thus, the application of the appeal to emotion fallacy at the stage is possible owing to the two abilities of the human being: 1) the speaker can adopt affective perspectives of the hearers and subsequently predict the emotional reaction of the hearers; 2) the speaker cannot replace their own initially egocentric perspective and thus is able to compare themselves with others and eventually evaluate possible risks and success.
To sum up, the present study aimed to illustrate the functions of the PT in the argumentation process as a form of language use. The 2 functions of PT can be deduced relying on the premises that argumentative discourse being a type of communication inherits all aforementioned advantages of PT for communication as a whole (understanding, minimising aggression, establishing common ground etc.), that is the General, or Conceptual function. And besides, an argumentative discourse has its intrinsic features like a conflict of standpoints and argumentation moves, and therefore highlights the Differential, or Operational function., which has its implications for: 1) providing arguments in general: a participant can change the way of providing verbal information (Dawkins resorted to detailing) to achieve a particular goal, e.g., persuasiveness; and 2) utilising appeal to emotion fallacy: successful playing on the emotions of others without taking into account their perspective is hardly possible since the mental representation of that fallacy requires the ability to take one's perspective and comparison between egocentric perspective and perspective of others.
Список литературы
1. Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright, 23.03.2013. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8 [Дата обращения: 17.06.2020]
2. Hollarek M., Lee NC. Current Understanding of Developmental Changes in Adolescent Perspective Taking. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;45:101-308. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101308. PMID: 35287012.
3. Nemeth T.E. The Role of Perspectives in Various Forms of Language Use. Semiotica. 2015;2015(203):53-78. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2014-0072/html
4. Van Eemeren FH. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2010. (Argumentation in Context; vol. 2). Available from: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288271
ФИЛОЛОГИЯ. ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ, ПРИКЛАДНАЯ И СРАВНИТЕЛЬНО-СОПОСТАВИТЕЛЬНАЯ
ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Шувалов Д.Ю., Немет Т. Эникё. Принятие перспективы в аргументативном дискурсе
Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2023; 6(3): 431-441
5. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions [Internet]. DE GRUYTER MOUTON; 1984. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110846089/html
6. Van Emeren FH, Grootendorst R., Snoeck Henkemans AF. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2002. https://doi .org/10.4324/9781410602442
7. Van Eemeren FH. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective [Internet]. 1st ed. Routledge; 2016 [cited 2023 Jun 13]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315538662
8. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2003 [cited 2023 March 2]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9780511616389/type/book
9. Van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P. Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. Argumentation. 2006;20(4):381-92. doi: 10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z
10. Шаховский В.И. Взаимодействие коммуникативных сред в естественной коммуникации. Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2020;1(3):113-134. DOI: 10.26907/26583321.2020.3.1.113-134.
11. Палутина О.Г., Сабитова В.Е. Репрезентация источников информации в судебном дискурсе. Казанский лингвистический журнал. 2019;3(2):85-93.
References
1. Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright, 23.03.2013. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8 [Дата обращения: 17.06.2020]
2. Hollarek M., Lee NC. Current Understanding of Developmental Changes in Adolescent Perspective Taking. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022;45:101-308. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101308. PMID: 35287012.
3. Németh T.E. The Role of Perspectives in Various Forms of Language Use. Semiotica. 2015;2015(203):53-78. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2014-0072/html
4. Van Eemeren FH. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2010. (Argumentation in Context; vol. 2). Available from: http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027288271
5. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions [Internet]. DE GRUYTER MOUTON; 1984. Available from: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110846089/html
6. Van Emeren FH, Grootendorst R., Snoeck Henkemans AF. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2002. https://doi .org/10.4324/9781410602442
7. Van Eemeren FH. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective [Internet]. 1st ed. Routledge; 2016 [cited 2023 Jun 13]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315538662
8. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press; 2003 [cited 2023 March 2]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9780511616389/type/book
9. Van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P. Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. Argumentation. 2006;20(4):381-92. doi: 10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z
10. Shakhovsky V.I. The interaction of the communicative environments in natural communication. Kazan linguistic journal. 2020;1(3):113-134. (In Russ.) doi: 10.26907/26583321.2020.3.1.113-134.
11. Palutina O.G., Sabitova V.E. Information representation in the court discourse. Kazan Linguistics Journal. 2019;3(2):85-93. (In Russ.)
Автор публикации Шувалов Денис Юрьевич -
Аспирант (PhD candidate) Докторская школа лингвистики Университет Сегеда Сегед, Венгрия Email: dns_shv@icloud.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001 -5485-6371
Немет Т. Эникё -
Профессор, PhD Кафедра общей лингвистики Руководитель докторской школы лингвистики Университет Сегеда
Член-корреспондент Венгерской Академии Наук Член Европейской академии Email: nemethen@hung. u-szeged. hu https://orcid.org/0000-0001 -8559- 7229
Раскрытие информации о конфликте интересов
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Информация о статье
Поступила в редакцию: 15.04.2023 Одобрена после рецензирования: 20.05.2023 Принята к публикации: 25.05.2023
Автор прочитал и одобрил окончательный вариант рукописи.
Author of the publication Shuvalov Denis Iurievich -
PhD candidate
Doctoral School in Linguistics University of Szeged Szeged, Hungary Email: dns_shv@icloud.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001 -5485-6371
Eniko Nemeth T. -
Professor, PhD
Dept. of General Linguistics
Head of the Doctoral School in Linguistics University of Szeged
Correspondent member of Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Member of Academia Europae E-mail: nemethen@hung.u-szeged.hu https://orcid.org/0000-0001 -8559- 7229 Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Article info
Submitted: 15.04.2023
Approved after peer reviewing: 20.05.2023
Accepted for publication: 25.05.2023
The author has read and approved the final manuscript.
Информация о рецензировании Peer review info
«Казанский лингвистический журнал» благода- Kazan Linguistic Journal thanks the anonymous
рит анонимного рецензента (рецензентов) за их reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer re-
вклад в рецензирование этой работы. view of this work.
