Notions of Persuasion and Argumentation as Macro- and Microcategories of Political Discourse

←2017. – Vol.11

Kharytonova D.

Post-graduate student

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

FULL TEXT PDF (UKRAINIAN)

ABSTRACT

Within this article an attempt is made to delineate the categories of persuasiveness and argumentativity in political discourse. Unfortunately, in todays’ world there is no clearly defined view on their nature, what leads to their frequent tampering, and sometimes even to their identification. In the article the categories of persuasiveness and argumentativity which are considered as different ways of addressee’s conviction are looked upon as those which might be divided in the context of the used instruments and devices. The analyzed nature of these notions gives us a possibility to claim that persuasion is wider than argumentation. But though they fulfil the same function of influencing the audience, methods of influence realization are different: from rational, true-logical ones to manipulative, emotionally engaged. In our opinion, the category of persuasiveness is wider than argumentativity and contains the latter as a subcategory. After all, persuasiveness implies the sense of impact on the recipient with a certain purpose, and, therefore, it can be implemented by any means: argumentativity is only one of them.

Key words: political discourse, text, persuasiveness, category of argumentation, persuasive communication.

REFERENCES

  1. Alekseev M. N. Vo vseoruzhyy arhumentov [In well-armed arguments] Moskow, Znanye, 1986. 64 p. (In Rus.).
  2. Baranov A. N. Lynhvystycheskaya teoryya arhumentatsyy (kohnytyvnuy podkhod): avtoref. dyserticyy [The linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach)]. Moskow, 1990. 49 p. (In Rus.).
  3. Baranov A. N., Serheev V. M. Lynhvo-prahmatycheskye mekhanyzmy arhumentatsyy [Lingvo-pragmatic methods of argumentation] // Ratsyonal’nost’, rassuzhdenye, kommunykaktsyya. Kyiv. Naukova dumka, 1987. P. 22 – 41. (In Rus.).
  4. Byelova A. D. Linhvistychni aspekty arhumentatsiyi (na materiali suchasnoyi anhliyskoyi movy): avtoref. dyserticyy [Linguistic aspects of argumentation (based on the modern English language)]. K.yiv, Kyyivskyy un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka, 1998. 30 p. (In Rus.).
  5. Brutyan H. A. Ocherk teoryy arhumentatsyy [Essay of theory of argumentation]. – Erevan: Yzdatel’stvo AN Armenyy, 1992. 303 p. (In Rus.).
  6. Brutyan H. A. Arhumentatsyya [Argumentation]. – Erevan : Yzd-vo AN ArmSSR, 1984 . 105 p. (In Rus.).
  7. Holodnov A. V. Lynhvoprahmatycheskye osobennosty persuazyvnoy kommunykatsyy (na prymere sovremennoy nemetskoyazychnoy reklamy): avtoref. dyserticyy [Lingvo-pragmatical features of persuasive communoication (based on modern German advertisings)]. – SPB., 2003. 23 p. (In Rus.).
  8. Koval N. Ye. Stratehiyi arhumentatyvnoho dyskursu (na materiali zakonodavchykh aktiv) [Strartegies of argumentative discourse (based on the material of legislative act] // Naukovyy visnyk kafedry YuNESKO Kyyivs’koho natsional’noho linhvistychnoho universytetu. Filolohiya, pedahohika, psykholohiya. 2010. Vol. 21. P. 39 – 45. (In Ukr.).
  9. Dvoretskyy Y. Kh. Latynsko-russkyy slovar [The Latin-Russian dictionary].12-e yzd. – Moskow: Medya; Drofa, 2009. VIII, [II]: 1055, [7] p. (In Rus.).
  10. Kondratenko N. V. Komunikatyvni stratehiyi v ukrayins’komu politychnomu dyskursi: interaktyvna vzayemodiya uchasnykiv politychnykh tok-shou [Communicative strategies in the Ukrainian political discourse: the interactive members’ cooperation of political talkshow] // Dialoh: Media-studiy. Vol. 8. – Odesa: Astroprynt, 2009. P. 48 – 58. (In Ukr.).
  11. Molodychenko E. N. Sozdanye obraza vraha kak persuazyvnaya stratehyya amerykanskoho polytycheskoho dyskursa: kohnytyvnyy lynhvoprahmatycheskyy analyz (na materyale publychnykh rechey polytycheskyy deyateley 1960 – 2008 hh.): dyserticyia [Creation of image of the enemy as persuasive srtrategy of American political discourse: cognitive lingvo-pragmatical analyse (based on politicians’ publical speeches 1960 – 2008 years]. – Arkhanhelsk: Prymorskyy hosudarstvennыy unyversytet ymeny M. V. Lomonosova, 2010. 245 p. (In Rus.).
  12. Neorytoryka: henezys, problemy, perspektyvy [Neorytoryka: henezys, problems, perspektyvs] // Sbornyk nauchno-analytycheskykh obzorov. – Moskow: MHU, 1987. P. 46 – 79. (In Rus.).
  13. Pocheptsov H. H. Teoriya komunikatsiyi [The theory of communication]. Kyiv: Vyd. tsentr “Kyyivskyy universytet”, 1999. 308 p. (In Ukr.).
  14. Puzykova Z. H. Funktsyonal’no-stylevye varyanty dokazatel’stva v russkom lyteraturnom yazyke nachala XXI v.: dyserticyia [Functional-style variants of evidence in the Russian literary language in early XXI centery]. – Perm^ Permskyy hosudarstvennыy unyversytet, 2007. 150 p. (In Rus.).
  15. Ryabtseva N. K. Mentalnye performatyvy v nauchnom dyskurse [Mental perfrmative in scientific discourse] // Voprosy yazykoznanyya. 1992. N. 4. P. 12 – 28. (In Rus.).
  16. Serazhym K. S. Dyskurs yak sotsiolinhval’ne yavyshche: metodolohiya, arkhitektonika, variatyvnist’ (na materialakh suchasnoyi hazetnoyi publitsystyky): monohrafiya [Discurse as socio-lingvual phenomenon: methodology, architectonics, variability (based on the material fo modern newspaper publicism]. – Kyiv: PALYVODA A. V. 2010. 352 p. (In Ukr.).
  17. Sovremennyy russkyy yazyk [The modern Russian language] / pod red. V. A. Beloshapkovoy. – Moskow: Vysshaya shkola, 1989. 800 p. (In Rus.).
  18. Tarasova E. F. Rechevoe vozdeystvye: metodolohyya y teoryya [Speech effects: methdlogy and theory] // Optymyzatsyya rechevoho vozdeystvyya. – Moskow: Nauka, 1990. P. 5 – 18. (In Rus.).
  19. Fedorova L. L. Typolohyya rechevoho vozdeystvyya y eho mesto v strukture obshchenyya [Typology of speech influence and its place in structure of communication] // Voprosy yazykoznanyya. – Mjskow, 1991. N. 6. P. 46 – 50. (In Rus.).
  20. Shanchenko A. S., Huley M. D. Arhumentatyvnyy aspekt sovremennoho frantsuzskoho polytycheskoho dyskursa [Argumentative aspect of modern Franch political discourse] // Visnyk studentskoho naukovoho tovarystva DonNU. P. 272–278. – http://jvestnik-sss.donnu.edu.ua/article/download/2161/2195 (In Rus.). [seen 17.04.2017].
  21. Shelestyuk E. V. Rechevoe vozdeystvye: ontolohyya y metodolohyya yssledovanyya: monohrafyya [The speech influence: ontology in research methodology]. – Moskow: FLYNTA: Nauka, 2014. 344 p. (In Rus.).
  22. Shynkaruk V. D. Katehoriyi modusu i dyktumu u strukturi rechennya: monohrafyya [Category of modus and dictum in structure of utterances]. – Chernivtsi: Ruta, 2002. 272 p. (In Rus.).
  23. Shmeleva T. V. Semantycheskyy syntaksys: tekst lektsyy [The semantic syntax]. – Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarskyy hos. un-t, 1994. 43 p. (In Rus.).
  24. Carey C. Phetorical means of persuasion // In Ian Worthington (Ed). Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action. Routledge, 1994. P. 26 – 45.
  25. Dillard J. P., Pfau M. The Persuasion Handbook: developments in theory and practice. – Sage Publications, 2002. 874 p.
  26. Miller G. R. On being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions // The Persuasion Habdbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. – Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002. P. 2 – 16.
  27. O’Keefe D. Persuasion [Electronic resource] // International Encyclopedia of Communication. Vol. 8. – Oxford, UK,      and       Malden,           MA:     Wiley-Blackwell,           P.         3590-3592.       – http://www.dokeefe.net/pub/OKeefe08IEC-persuasion.pdf [seen 17.04.2017].