N. Alefirenko , M. Nurtazina2
1 Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor of the National Research University “Belgorod
State University”, Belgorod, Russia
2 Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National
University, Astana, Kazakhstan n–alefirenko@rambler.ru, nurtazina2@gmail.com
CULTURALLY DETERMINED PECULIARITIES OF ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE1
The article discusses the argumentative discourse with the identification of culturally conditioned characters. The urgency of the specific characteristics of the discourse under consideration is substantiated. The conditions for the actualization of the argumentative activity are specified, which include: the existence of a certain problem or a contentious issue; the possibility of a reasonable discussion of them in a specific situation; the opportunity to come to a conclusion as a result of their discussion. A situation is described in which this type of discourse is reflected, considered as a unity of communicative (illocutionary) and interactive components. The results of the implementation of this type of discourse are presented, indicating that the argumentative situation is characterized by cognitive dissonance and a clearly expressed pragmatic focus on the impact on the addressee of the addressee in the choice of alternatives in the process of making the decision by the addressee.
Key words: argumentative discourse, cognitive dissonance, pragmatic orientation, affecting function, culturally conditioned signs.
1. Introduction. Formulation of the problem
Communicative activity of a person is inextricably linked with the process of sharing experience, knowledge, any information. In this aspect, one of the most important functions of communication is the regulation of human behavior, the targeted impact of communication partners on knowledge, beliefs, opinions, evaluations of each other in order to achieve a certain result.
An integral part of communicative communication may be the so–called argumentative discourse [1, p.56–63; 2, p. 12–13; 3, p. 219; 4, p. 78; 5, p. 23–24; 6, p. 21].
As is known, the main purpose of the argumentative discourse is not only the exchange of information, experience, but also, mainly, the justification, motivation or refutation of some state of affairs (point of view) in a rational way for perception and acceptance by an individual or collective recipient, is undoubtedly a composite part of communication.
2. Aims and Objectives of the Study
The main task of the study is to consider the features of the implementation of the argumentative discourse (hereinafter – AD) with the identification of culturally conditioned characters. Objectives of this paper are: 1) to justify the need to consider the specific characteristics of the discourse in question and the specific conditions for actualizing the argumentative activity, in particular, to show that an integral part of this discourse is: a) the formulation of any problem or controversial issue; b) the possibility of rational discussion in a specific situation; c) the identification of consensus and the opportunity to come to a conclusion as a result of their discussion; 2) describe the speech situations in which this type of discourse can be transmitted; 3) consider AD as a unity of communicative (illocutionary) and interactive components; 4) to prove that the argumentative situation is characterized by cognitive dissonance and a clearly expressed pragmatic focus on the impact on the addressee of the addressee in the choice of alternatives in the process of making a decision by the addressee.
3. Results of the Study. Classification Feature for Consideration of Argumentative
Discourse
Many scientific works specify specific characteristics of this type of discourse, namely:
– the argumentative discourse always consists of more than one statement [1, p.56; 2, p. 12;
7; 1; 2; 3; 5];
– all statements in the composition of argumentative discourse have two communicative functions simultaneously: 1) the argumentation function, which is common to all speech moves, and 2) the function determined by the speaker’s private purpose. In this aspect, individual speech acts in its composition exist only in conjunction with other speech acts that support or refute the discussed positions [3, p.221];
– the impact on the addressee in the process of argumentation is carried out through the modification of his ideas about the world picture, more precisely, about the fragments of the world picture, and, accordingly the system of his views which is possible only with the «voluntary» consent of the addressee to accept the arguments of the prologist as sufficient and convincing [4, p.19];
– the argumentative discourse is characterized by a complex actor’s intention. The addressee aspires not only to force the addressee to act according to his desire, but also to inform him, to adjust to a certain emotional mood, to convince himself of the correctness of his thesis and infidelity of counterarguments, to prove and show their inconsistency, etc. The individual intentions of the addressee are subordinated to the main goal – impact on consciousness and speech / non–verbal behavior of the addressee [6, p.29; 5, p. 178].
At the same time, certain linguists note the conditions for the actualization of the argumentative activity, which include:
– the presence of some problem or controversial issue;
– the possibility of a reasonable discussion of them in a specific situation;
– the opportunity to come to this or that conclusion as a result of their discussion, i.e. the argumentative discourse reflects a situation that is seen as the unity of communicative (illocutionary) and interactive components [5, p. 15–16; 8, p. 708; 10, p. 211].
An argumentative situation can arise in conditions of both simultaneous (direct dialogue in intercultural communication) and deferred communication (the work of the argumentative subject with a written text is his creation and perception). Accordingly, the addressee of argumentative discourse can be both active in the presence of two–sided verbal communication, and passive – in the absence of direct verbal interaction.
3.1 Pragmatic Direction of the Argumentative Situation
The main function of the addressee is to inform the addressee about a certain state of things (fact, event, opinion) in order to induce him to understand and, possibly, accept this or that provision. In other words, the argumentative situation is characterized by cognitive dissonance and a clearly expressed pragmatic focus on the impact on the addressee of the addressee in the choice of alternatives in the process of making a decision by the addressee.
Argumentative activity, like any other communicative activity, is regulated by the rules of successful communication, the main ones for this type of speech communication are: the principle of cooperative cooperation [3, p.123], the principle of politeness [4, p.45–52; 15, p. 67–68], the principle of relevance [5, p.89–92] and the working consensus [2, p.154].
For successful joint activity within the framework of argumentative discourse, the process of interaction must proceed in such a way that its participants can foresee in advance a possible «inefficient» course of the partner, capable of leading either to a communication mismatch or to a communicative failure. When the argumentative discourse is actualized in conditions of delayed feedback, the expediency of foreseeing, recognizing a possible «ineffective» speech course increases.
Simultaneous argumentative discourse is a set of sequentially unfolding and intersecting communicative events, including a different number of speech actions of communicants aimed at achieving immediate and specific, as well as more distant and more general communicative goals.
The achieving the set goals in both varieties of argumentative discourse is possible only if its participants have a complex of knowledge, including – linguistic and non–linguistic, personal and socially shared knowledge. Both in the generation and perception of speech, the participants in the argument construct their discursive strategies, primarily on the basis of knowledge and perceptions that all members of the common linguistic community have with them (general situationally unrelated or background knowledge). In addition, for successful interaction in a specific situation of argumentative communication, actors need to know what, when, to whom and how they can or should say. Knowledge related to this discursive aspect is defined as situationally related and includes contextual, interactive and linguistic knowledge.
Contextual knowledge includes knowledge of temporal and local parameters of the actualized interaction, knowledge of the topic of communication, its content area, knowledge of the causes and consequences of certain events, knowledge of the social and professional status of participants, etc.
Interactive knowledge includes knowledge of the interactive model of argumentative discourse, its types of speech acts, their sequence, basic maxims and postulates of successful argumentative interaction.
Language knowledge [8, p.710–711] constitute the basis of the code knowledge of the participants in the argument, determining how they should or can formalize their speech actions for the successful implementation of their communicative intentions. The totality of these basic knowledge and representations is organized in the form of cognitive structures that are contained in the long–term memory of the members of the given society and serve as the basis for perception, processing and generation of information.
Argumentative discourse depends not only on what is embedded in its units, reflecting the world in a certain way (event level), but also on how it is interpreted (discourse level). Models of interpretation depend, in turn, on ideas about the principles of organizing the most argumentative discourse. These conventional principles are conditioned by a specific culture [6, p.163; 7, p.45; 8, p.178; 9; 10, p.62].
3.2. Frame Analysis as an Opportunity to Detect Linguistic Particularities of Frame
Violations. Culturally Determened Frames
One of the complexities of the study of frames is due to the fact that they do not exist in pure form. In the course of any interaction of individuals, several frames interact. Since frames are not recognized, the objectivity of their existence is revealed when they are violated and is confirmed linguistically.
Based on the work of Deborah Tannen [12], which experimentally determined the linguistic signals of frame violation during the narrative, we can show the manifestation of violations by the example of Kazakhstani students of American universities (the author of this article observed during the course of the Fulbright Academic Internship during the year at Harvard University in 2017–2008):
1) omissions or omissions of information (for example, Kazakhstani students in the US miss the polite recommendations of American professors about the need to make changes to the work or to its organization, since the latter do not enter into their frame of relations with the teacher, from which, in the event of a divergence of opinions, they expect strict criticism);
2) repetitions (for example, our students when communicating with Americans on a request to explain an incomprehensible statement or statement often react with a simple repetition of what has been said, since there are no components in their frame, the lack of which makes the statement vague for the native speaker);
3) the so–called false starts, when the speaker starts the statement in accordance with his own expectations: and then, realizing that this is not true, corrects it;
4) the incorrect statements, distorting events. They are based on false memories that replaced the true ones in accordance with expectations, i.e. in accordance with the available frames of events;
5) the value judgments. Even the addition of evaluative adjectives and adverbs indicates that for a speaker, these qualities are important and expected in a particular situation, what he expected them to see;
6) the additions. They are «extreme manifestations» [12, p.70] of the fact that the speaker’s expectations are the basis of his interpretation of events.
The above characteristics are formal linguistic evidence of the availability of expectations of the speakers and can be used to detect frames, the deviation from which they gave rise.
For successful speech communication between carriers of different cultures, comparable frames are critically important. Otherwise, one can speak fluent in terms of vocabulary and grammar in a foreign language, but the values transferred will differ from intentions [11, p. 34–35]. Discourse is that aspect of communication in which the culture that defines the frames used to decode messages is much more important than the linguistic part [5, p.15–16].
Culturally conditioned frames (expectations structures) relate to at least two aspects of discourse – structure and content. In order to demonstrate the presence of structural frames relating to any polynomial conversation, consider only one parameter – turn taking. At first glance, the situation seems obvious. In their native culture, everyone intuitively knows when to enter into a conversation, how long to talk, how to signal their desire to speak, etc. However, the indicated parameters are strictly culturally conditioned.
In English–speaking cultures, a pause is signaled by the end of the replica of one participant and the opportunity for another to enter into a dialogue. In the Kazakh culture, the priority of partners during a conversation is not limited to a consistent exchange of remarks. The conversation can be built like the tirades of one of the interlocutors and the periodic approving nods of the other, or as a violation of the order of statements and answers alternately pronounced by the interlocutors. In this case, the broken sequence of answers, the transition from one topic to another do not cause confusion or misunderstanding among the interlocutors because the contexts of the conversation are obvious to each participant.
In this filling of the concept of order, one can trace the tendency to collective discourse and focus on content, which, in turn, refers us to the values of Kazakh and Russian collectivism in Kazakhstan. As a result of the application of unconscious norms and values of such a Eurasian culture, in the course of communication in English, there is a violation of the cultural norms of its carriers.
An example of frames relating to the content of a discourse can serve as topics that can or can not be discussed. In English–speaking cultures it is not customary to talk about wages, religion, politics and sex. These are taboo topics, one mention of which can disrupt the smooth flow of conversation. We must admit that it is these topics (maybe, with the exception of sex) that are not only acceptable, but also the most popular in the Kazakh culture among students.
4. Results of the study. The cultural patterns underlying the argumentative discourse
General ideas about the principles, regularities and driving forces of argumentative discourse, carried out in a specific language and reflected in the cognitive structures of the speakers of this language and the culture embodied in it, are absolutely necessary for communication of representatives of different cultures.
For people studying any foreign language and using it as a communication, it is necessary to know how the principles of the argumentative discourse of an alien culture (to recognize the intentions of carriers and to act in accordance with their expectations) and the principles of discourse in their native language (to control the interference of these principles in the process of speaking another language). Without the formation of such representations and the development of skills to follow them, a foreign speech, for example, a Kazakh has every chance to become inadequate in terms of culture and either to remain useless or to produce a negative effect. In any case, productive communication, leading to concrete results, will be difficult.
To solve the above applied problem of productive communication, the identification and description of cognitive frames of different levels of discourse by its nature remains extremely relevant for modern linguistics.
4.1. The Sense Perception of Argumentative Discourse
The next aspect of the consideration of argumentative discourse is the question of the semantic perception.
It is well known that the perception of any discourse is an extremely complex process that requires for its implementation a joint action of memory, the ability to make inferences and achieve deduced knowledge [7, p.91–99; 1, p.162]. The complexity of the process of semantic perception is determined by both objective and subjective factors.
The first of these groups includes features of the speech message, which is a logical–semantic structure.
The second issue is the features of the perceptual process of perception in the recipient, depending on the psychological characteristics of the individual, such as meaningfulness, discreteness, conditioning with past experience, anticipating the nature of perception, etc.
Meaning is based on an understanding of the speech communication of the message, which covers four levels [7, p.213–218].
The first, as the simplest, is the understanding of the main idea of the utterance, the second one is the understanding not only of what is being said, but also of what is being reported, the third level of understanding requires professional knowledge in the field to which the speech message is dedicated. On the fourth there is an understanding not only of what and how it is said to the speaker, but also the identification of the main meaning, the main thought, regardless of the mode of expression – in the subtext or explicitly.
Investigating the nature of perception, W. Nyisser [6, p.213–218] postulates the existence of three perceptual systems that are in close interaction with each other.
The first of them is a system of direct perception and immediate reactions and actions of a person, the second is a system of interpersonal perception and interaction, and, finally, the third is a system for recognizing objects and their mental representations. The first system is characterized by the fact that here a person does not resort to representations or to the data of previous experience, it helps a person to understand the concrete situation in which he is, and act in accordance with this situation. The second system allows you to perceive communicative gestures, interpersonal relationships, evaluate them. Finally, the third system shows the dependence of perception on mental representations of experience and knowledge [11, p.112–114].
Representatives of the cognitive approach to the perception of discourse are used to describe this process by the term «mental model». This term was introduced into the scientific practice by P. Johnson–Laerd, T.A. van Dijk and W. Kinchem [13; 7]. «Mental model» is defined as some knowledge in long–term or operational memory that meets the following conditions: 1) its structure corresponds to the structure of the situation being represented; 2) it can consist of elements that correspond only to perceptual entities (in this case it can be realized as an image, perceptive or imaginary), or it can contain elements corresponding to abstract concepts [13, p.488].
Explicit content of the discourse is usually only a blueprint: a reader or listener depends on how he will fill in this drawing with details. The used derivation knowledge quickly and automatically toggles «bridges», which people do not notice and do not realize.
T.A. van Dijk and W. Kinc [13, p.489] under the cognitive model understand the construct in episodic memory, representing that event or the situation, which is discussed in the discourse. The true understanding of discourse is interpreted by them as the construction of a new model or the «modernization» of an activated previously existing model, which is undoubtedly subjective and characterized by personal associations, derived knowledge, includes fragments of models, etc.
This model is a personal and unique phenomenon, containing a specific interpretation of a certain discourse in a certain period of time. It is also noted that in the process of perception of a discourse simultaneously with the semantic processing of incoming discursive information in the consciousness of the individual, its pragmatic processing takes place, since the nature of verbal interaction requires communication participants to understand not only what is said, but also what is done in discourse. In parallel with the semantic and pragmatic processing, communicants create a representation of the actualized social situation. In this complex process, extralinguistic knowledge of a variety of types is involved, such as: knowledge of the types of social context and social subsystem, knowledge of socially–conditioned frames or scripts, and their conventional organization [13, p. 19–21].
4.2. Cultural–Cognitive Models Underlying the Argumentative Discourse
Adequate perception and understanding of this or that discourse is largely due to the belonging of participants in communication to one national culture. As the researchers believe, all the above types of knowledge are stored in the minds of the subjects of interaction. At the same time, in the long–term memory there are shared knowledge, which constitute culturally relevant knowledge – encyclopaedic information in the form of rules and norms, sociocultural information in the form of micro– and macro–scenarios, and in short–term memory individual knowledge associated with personal experience of an individual is placed. Both mental structures are in dynamic interaction and represent cultural cognitive models that determine the processes of generation and perception of discourse and life activity of the subjects as a whole [4, p.45; 6, p.128; 8, p.715–716].
According to D. Holland and N. Quinn [14, p.98], cultural–cognitive models include propositional–schematic and figurative–schematic knowledge. Propositional schemes (a set of relevant propositions in which the concepts and relations between them are refined) are shared by all members of a certain cultural community and provide a rapid derivation of knowledge in familiar situations. Figures are represented as gestals similar to visual images. Both schemes together represent different types of idealized events, phenomena, facts, their components, participants and relations between them in a simplified form and constitute a context for understanding [14, p.103; 15; 9; 12].
Cultural cognitive models of communicants belonging to different cultures may not coincide, which often leads to a communicative failure, interpreted as a complete or partial misunderstanding of the speech message by the addressee.
In cases of direct interaction, participants in verbal interaction have the opportunity, correcting their statements, avoiding communicative failure, which is much more difficult to achieve in conditions of written, delayed communication. With deferred understanding of the text, the encoding of the text is decisive for the addressee. The text should be as clearly as possible encoded by the author, since the recipient, having only the text before him, is deprived of the opportunity to ask a question for clarification. In this case, using the text–artifact having a symbolic nature, the addressee through the expression plan gets an exit into the signification of the message and, accordingly, access to the conventional field and the forecast of the individual field of author’s significance [1, p.213].
Within the framework of interactive argumentative discourse, as noted above, the conflict of pragmatic goals, intentions, intentions of its participants is reflected, due to differences in their cognitive models and opinions about certain events, phenomena and objects of reality.
In connection with this, each speech move in the argumentative discourse has two functions simultaneously: the first is the argumentation function, which is common to all speech moves, the second is determined by the private purpose of a participant and the corresponding strategy used to achieve it.
Communicative strategy is an important component of the plan for the speaker to realize his speech behavior; this is a mechanism that is constantly corrected in the course of the interaction in order to find the best solution to the tasks and achieve the planned goal [11, p.241]. The strategies of the participants in the argumentative discourse are actualized through certain regulatory actions (regulators) that carry out the organization, coordination, control, stimulation of speech interaction, and overcoming, arising during the interaction of disagreements.
The most frequent regulatory actions in the context of interactive argumentative discourse include: the use of the phenomenon of privatization of knowledge, the essence of which is that the sender of information forces the recipient to «calculate» the semantic content of his statement, and in accordance with the mental laws of assimilation of information knowledge for which I had to work, I feel the subject as my own.
The effective regulatory methods include the actualization of the explicit mode by which the speaker, on the one hand, can emphasize the positions considered by him as the most significant, and on the other hand, introducing an explicit mode of knowledge, which thus denies the very possibility of discussion the truth of this or that provision; implicit submission or concealment of information, concealment of certain facts; receptions of a false analogy (events, facts are compared, the relationship between which is established tendentiously); methods of false identification (tautological explanation), false references to authority, etc.
5. Conclusions
Thus, the argumentative discourse, being an integral part of the communication theory, is connected with the most important cognitive process – decision–making process, during which there is an exchange of opinions and beliefs with defending certain positions.
Argumentation is impossible without mutual understanding: one can accept or not accept the arguments of the other only after they have adequately perceived and understood what is happening with support both for a complex of cognitive knowledge and for a set of procedural knowledge that in the theory of communication is referred to as «communicative practices» and appear in quality of sociocultural factors.
References
1 Makarov M.L. Fundamentals of Discourse Theory. – Moscow: ITDGK «Gnosis», 2003. – 280 p.
2 Yemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. Argumentation, communication, mistakes. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 1992. – 231 p.
3 Grice G.P. Logic and Speech Communication // New in Foreign Linguistics. – Вып. 16: Linguistic Pragmatics. – Moscow: Progress, 1985. – P.217–237.
4 Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. – Cambridge, 1994.
5 Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. – Oxford, 1986.
6 Yokoyama O.B. Cognitive model of discourse and Russian word order. – Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2005. – 424 p.
7 Alefirenko N.F., Nurtazina M.B. System panorama of cognitive representation of taxis semantics // Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Linguistics. 2017; 21
(4): 706–728 (DOI: 10.22363 / 2312–9182–2017–21–4–706–728)
8 Lakoff George. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories of language tell us about thinking / Transl. with English I.B. Shatunovsky. – Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. – 792 p.
9 Discourse. Problems in grammatical research: The history of research on the theory of grammar: Vol. 4: Grammatical categories in discourse / Ed. V.A. Plungian. – Moscow: Gnosis, 2008. – 321 p.
10 Tannen D., Wallat C. Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction // Tannen D (ed.) Framing in Discourse. – New York–Oxford, 1993. – Pp. 57–76.
11 Neisser U. Multiple Systems: A new Approach to Cognitive Theory // Cognition. – 1994. – Vol.6. – № 3.
12 Johnson–Laird P.N. Mental Models // Posner M.I. Foundations of Cognitive Science. – Cambridge, MA, 1993.
13 Dijk T.A. van, Kintsch W. Strategies in Discourse Comprehension. – New York, 1983.
14 Holland D., Quinn N. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. – Cambridge, 1987.
15 Maral Nurtazina, etc. Creative Potential of Intercultural Communication in the Context of Language Teaching in Educational Transformations in the Republic of Kazakhstan // 1st International Conference on Teaching & Learning (ICTL): Proceeding, 14–15 September 2015, Langkawi, Malaysia: MNNF Publisher, P. 66–71.
Н.Ф. Алефиренко, М.Б. Нуртазина
КУЛЬТУРНО ОБУСЛОВЛЕННЫЕ ПРИЗНАКИ АРГУМЕНТАТИВНОГО
ДИСКУРСА
В статье рассматривается аргументативный дискурс с выявлением культурно обусловленных признаков. Обоснована актуальность специфических характеристик рассматриваемого дискурса. Конкретизированы условия актуализации аргументативной деятельности, куда входят: наличие некоторой проблемы или спорного вопроса; возможность разумного их обсуждения в конкретной ситуации; возможность прийти к тому или иному заключению в результате их обсуждения. Описывается ситуация, в которой отражается данный вид дискурса, рассматриваемая как единство коммуникативного (иллокутивного) и интерактивного компонентов. Представлены результаты реализации данного вида дискурса с указанием того, что для аргументативной ситуации характерны когнитивный диссонанс и четко выраженная прагматическая направленность на воздействие со стороны адресанта на адресата в выборе альтернатив в процессе принятия адресатом решения.
Н.Ф. Алефиренко, М.Б. Нуртазина
НЕГІЗДЕЛГЕН ДИСКУРСТІН КӨРСЕТКІШТЕРДІҢ МӘДЕНИТТІК
БЕЛГІЛЕРІ
Мақалада моральдық–шартты белгілерді идентификациялау арқылы негіздерлен дискурс мәселелері талқыланады. Қаралып отырған дискурстың нақты сипаттамаларының өзектілігі негізделген. Мақалада даукес қызметін жаңарту және белгілі бір жағдайлар: проблема немесе даулы мәселе болуын; нақты жағдайдағы оларды ақылға қонымды талқылау мүмкіндігі; пікірталас нәтижесінде қорытындыға шығу мүмкіндігі айтылады. Ол белсенді нысаны бірлігі коммуникативтік (illocutionary) ретінде қарастырылады дискурс, танылатын жағдайды және интерактивті компоненттерді сипаттайды, дискурс осы түріне іске асыру нәтижелері пікірталас жағдайында танымдық диссонансом сипатталады және анық шешім мақсатты шешімдер балама таңдауда, алушыға–жіберушінің тарапынан әсер прагматикалық бағыттылық мәселелері қарастырылады.