Alethic and deontic means of evaluative argumentation in the discourse of fiction

  • А.И. Приходько
Keywords: alethic, argumentation, declarative-expressive, deontic, evaluation statement, informative-descriptive, pragmatic context

Abstract

This article focuses on the cognitive-communicative and axiopragmatic aspects of argumentation that include system of statements, aimed at the denial or justification of any thought or message. From this perspective, it is advisable to speak abut two types of argumentation: alethic and deontic. Referent of alethic argumentation is truth, that is either approved or denied. Referent of deontic argumentation is actions, deeds, behavioral side of communicative situations in general. Alethic and deontic argumentation in evaluation statements are actualized in pragmatic contexts of four types: the obligation of assistance; a preliminary agreement (both context are characteristic of the deontic argumentation); the expectation of action caused by the attempts of persuasion of the correctness of a statement; intensive expression of the opinion (these types of contexts are characteristic of alethic argumentation). Alethic argumentation is often used in evaluation statements of informative-descriptive illocutionary type (argumentatives, constatives, descriptives), as the main purpose of such statements is belief in the correctness of a decision taken by the addressee. Deontic kind of argumentation is used in evaluation statements of declarative-expressive (comissives, expositives) and directive (requestives, injunctives, suggestives) types as the main communicative purpose of such statements is to encourage a particular action.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

1. Арутюнова Н.Д. Фактор адресата / Н.Д. Арутюнова // Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит-ры и яз. – 1981. – Т. 40, № 4. – С. 356–367.

2. Белова А.Д. Лингвистические аспекты аргументации / А.Д. Белова. – К. : КГУ, 1997. – 300 с.

3. Гуревич В.В. Модальность и семантика глагольного вида / В.В. Гуревич // Вопросы языкознания. – 2000. – № 2. – С. 71–78.

4. Демьянков В.З. Когнитивная лингвистика как разновидность интерпретирующего подхода / В.З. Демьянков // Вопросы языкознания. – 1994. – № 4. – С. 17–33.

5. Демьянков В.З. Конвенции, правила и стратегии общения (интерпретирующий подход
к аргументации) / В.З. Демьянков // Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит-ры и яз. – 1982. – Т. 41,
№ 4. – С. 327–337.

6. Конецкая В.П. Контекстуальная обусловленность оценки в высказываниях различного функционального плана / В.П. Конецкая // Вопросы английской контекстологии. – Л. : ЛГУ. – 1990. – Вып. 3. – С. 115–122.

7. Лазарев В.В. Язык, текст, аргументация / В.В. Лазарев // Материалы межвуз. научн. конф. «Дискурс и аргументация». – Пятигорск : Пятигорск. гос. пед. ин-т иностр. яз. – 1992. – С. 62–64.

8. Павиленис Р.И. Проблема смысла: современный логико-философский анализ языка / Р.И. Павиленис. – М. : Мысль, 1983. – 286 с.

9. Падучева Е.В. Высказывание и его соотнесенность с действительностью / Е.В. Падучева. – М. : Наука, 1985. – 271 с.

10. Почепцов О.Г. Основы прагматического описания предложения / О.Г. Почепцов. – Киев : Вищ. школа, 1986. – 116 с.

11. Почепцов Г.Г. Фактор слушателя / Г.Г. Почепцов // Тез. докл. Всесоюзн. конф. «Коммуникативные единицы языка». – М. : МГПИИЯ. – 1984. – С. 99–105.

12. Ряполова Л.Г. Аргументація в спонукальному дискурсі : автореф. Дис. На здобуття наук. ступеня канд. філол. наук : спец. 10.02.04 «Германські мови» / Л.Г. Ряполова. – Київ : КДПІІМ, 1993. – 15 с.

13. Drubig H.B. Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und katigorischer Sätze / H.B. Drubig // Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. – Opladen, 1992. – S. 142–195.

14. Giora R. On the Informativeness requirement / R. Giora // Journal of Pragmatics. – 1988. – Vol. 12, № 5/6. – P. 547–565.

15. Jelinek E. Ergative "splits" and Argument Type / E. Jelinek // Papers on Case and
Agreement: I. – Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993. – P. 15–42.

16. Kintsch W. A Cognitive Architecture for Comprehension / W. Kintsch // Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. – Washington : Acad. Press. – 1992. – P. 143–164.

17. Matthews R.J. Psychological Reality of Grammars / R.J. Matthews // The Chomskyan Turn. – Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991. – P. 182–199.

18. Miller G.A. Linguists, Psychologists, and the Cognitive Science / G.A. Miller // Language. – 1990. – Vol. 66, № 2. – P. 317–322.

19. Neisser U. Two Themes in the Study of Cognition / U. Neisser // Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. – Washington : Acad. Press. – 1992. – P. 333–340.

20. Sadock J.M. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts / J.M. Sadock. – N.Y. : Academic Press, 1974. – 168 p.

REFERENCES

Arutyunova, N.D. (1981). Faktor adresata [The factor of addressee]. Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. literaturu i yazuka. – News of AS USSR series of literature and language, 40 (4), 356–367 (in Russian).

Belova, A.D. (1997). Linguisticheskie aspektu argumentatsii [Linguistic aspects of argumentation]. Kiev: KGU Publ.

Demyankov, V.Z. (1982). Konventsii, pravila i strategii obsheniya (interpretiruyushiy podhod k argumentatsii) [Conventions, rules and communication strategies (interpretive approach to argumentation)]. Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. literaturu i yazuka. – News of AS USSR series of literature and language, 41 (4), 327–337 (in Russian).

Demyankov, V.Z. (1994). Kognitivnaya linguistika kak raznovidnost interpretiruyushego podhoda [Cognitive linguistics as a kind of interpretative approach]. Voprosu yazukoznaniya. – Issues in linguistics, 4, 17–33 (in Russian).

Drubig, H.B. (1992). Zur Frage der grammatischen Repräsentation thetischer und katigorischer Sätze. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 142–195.

Giora, R. (1988). On the Informativeness requirement. Journal of Pragmatics, 547–565.

Gurevich, V.V. (2000). Modalnost i semantika glagolnogo vida [Modality and semantics of verbal aspect]. Voprosu yazukoznaniya. – Issues in linguistics, 2, 71–78 (in Russian).

Jelinek, E. (1993). Ergative "splits" and Argument Type. Papers on Case and Agreement, 15–42.

Kintsch, W. (1992). A Cognitive Architecture for Comprehension. Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues, 143–164.

Konetskaya, V.P. (1990). Kontekstualnaya obuslovlenost otsenki v vuskazuvaniyah razlichnogo funktsionalngo plana [Contextual determination of evaluation in the statements of various functional plan]. Voprosu angliyskoy kontekstologii. – Questions of English contextology, 3, 115–122 (in Russian).

Lazarev, V.V. (1992). Yazuk, tekst, argumentatsiya [Language, text, argumentation]. Materialu mezhvuz. nauchn. konf. “Diskurs i argumentatsiya” [Proc. Interuniversity Scientific Conference ”Discourse and argumentation”]. Pyatigorsk, 62–64.

Matthews, R.J. (1991). Psychological Reality of Grammars. The Chomskyan Turn, 182–199.

Miller, G.A. (1990). Linguists, Psychologists, and the Cognitive Science. Language, 317–322.

Neisser, U. (1992). Two Themes in the Study of Cognition. Cognition: Conceptual and Methodological Issues, 333–340.

Paducheva, E.V. (1985). Vuskazuvanie i ego sootnesenost s deistvitelnostyu [Utterance and its relation to the reality]. Moscow: Nauka Publ.

Pavilenis, R.I. (1983). Problema smusla: sovremennuy logiko-filosofskiy analiz yazuka [The problem of meaning: the modern logical-philosophic analysis of language]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ.

Pocheptsov, G.G. (1984). Faktor slushatelya [Listener's factor]. Tezisu dokl. Vsesoyuzn. konf. ”Kommunikativnuye edinitsu yazuka” [Proc. Union Conf. “Communicative language units”]. Moscow, 99–105.

Pocheptsov, O.G. (1986). Osnovu pragmaticheskogo opisaniya predlozheniya [Fundamentals of pragmatic description of sentence]. Kiev: Vyshcha shkola Publ.

Ryapolova, L.G. (1993). Argumentatsia v sponukalnomu dikursi. Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. nauk [Argumentation in the motivating discourse. Cand. philol. sci. diss. synopsis.]. Kyiv
(in Ukrainian).

Sadock, J.M. (1974). Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Published
2016-11-27
How to Cite
Приходько, А. (2016). Alethic and deontic means of evaluative argumentation in the discourse of fiction. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, (12), 62-72. Retrieved from https://periodicals.karazin.ua/cognitiondiscourse/article/view/6852