Tambov
All-Russian academic journal
“Issues of Cognitive Linguistics”

HEURISTICS OF THE BIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ARGUMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION

HEURISTICS OF THE BIOCOGNITIVE APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ARGUMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION


Author:  N.S. Barebina

Affiliation:  Baikal State University (Irkutsk, Russia)

Abstract:  In the first part of the article the author discusses the elaboration matter of the cognitive approach to the study of argumentation. The conclusion is that the perspective on the interaction between the theory of argumentation and the cognitive linguistics is limited by understanding the argumentative communication as a closed mental process.
Further, the article analyzes the background for the study of argumentation within the biocognitive approach, it examines its potential in terms of the heuristic model of scientific research.
The third part of the article presents the concept of «languaging» and distributed model of language which being a part of the biocognitive approach can be considered as a methodological basis for the study of argumentation.
The article addresses the methodological adequacy of the construct «common ground». It is alleged that the theory of «Argumentation in the language system» conceptually overlaps the distributed model of language and the concept of «languaging».
In conclusion the author states that a biocognitive approach makes it possible to use new techniques and expand the scope of the search for new ideas, and therefore it promotes measures to overcome the scientific inertia.

Keywords:  languaging, distributed cognition theory, argumentation, topical analysis

References
Baranov, A.N. (1990). Lingvisticheskaya teoriya argumentatsii (kognitivnyy podkhod): dis. … d-ra filol. nauk. Moscow: Institut russkogo yazyka.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1996). Problema rechevykh zhanrov. In Bakhtin M.M. Sobranie sochineniy. T. 5: Raboty 1940–1960 gg. (pp. 159-206). Moscow: Russkie slovari.
Bakhtin, M.M. (2000). K filosofskim osnovam gumanitarnykh nauk. In Bakhtin M.M. Avtor i geroy. K filosofskim osnovam gumanitarnykh nauk (pp. 227-231). Sankt-Peterburg: Azbuka.
Bryushinkin, V.N. (2000). Sistemnaya model' argumentatsii. In Transtsendental'naya antropologiya i logika: trudy mezhdunarodnogo seminara «Antropologiya s sovremennoy tochki zreniya» VII Kantovskikh chteniy (pp. 133-155). Kaliningrad.
Bryushinkin, V.N. (2010). O dvoyakoy roli ritoriki v sistemnoy modeli argumentatsii. RAT-sIO.ru, 3, 3-14.
Vygotskiy, L.S. (2007). Myshlenie i rech'. Moscow.
Grigor'eva, V.S. (2008). Argumentativnyy diskurs v kognitivno-kommunikativnom aspekte. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, 1, 24-31.
Grigor'eva, V.S. (2014). Kognitivnye mekhanizmy kommunikatsii v rechevykh zhanrakh argumentativnogo diskursa. In Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka. Vyp. XVI (pp. 18-29).
Gudkova, K.V. (2008). Kognitivnye kharakteristiki argumentatsii publitsisticheskogo teksta. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki: v 2-kh ch., 1, 82-84.
Dridze, T.M. (1984). Tekstovaya deyatel'nost' v strukture sotsial'noy kommunikatsii. Moscow.
Zhagar, I. (2000). Argumentatsiya v yazyko-voy sisteme: mezhdu chastitsami i polifoniey (esse iz oblasti intuitivnoy epistemologii). Kritika i semiotika, 1-2, 68-80.
Imoto, S. (2013). Chto takoe «yazykovaya deyatel'nost'» po U. Maturane? In Studia linguistica cognitiva. Vyp. 3. Kognitivnaya dinamika v yazykovykh vzaimodeystviyakh (pp. 19-41). Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.
Kolmogorova, A.V. (2009). Argumentatsiya v rechevoy povsednevnosti. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.
Kolmogorova, A.V. (2012). Kontseptsii i modeli kommunikatsii v gumanitarnom znanii. Vestnik nauki Sibiri. Seriya 9. Filologiya. Pedagogika,1, 272-275.
Kostyushkina, G.M. (2009). Sovremennye napravleniya vo frantsuzskoy lingvistike. Moscow: URSS Librokom.
Koshelev, A.D. (2013). Sovremennaya teoreticheskaya lingvistika kak Vavilonskaya Bashnya. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Literatury i yazyka. T. 72, 6, 3-22.
Kravchenko, A.V. (2013). Grammatika kak semiozis. In Studia linguistica cognitiva. Vyp. 3. Kognitivnaya dinamika v yazykovykh vzaimodeystviyakh (pp. 58-81). Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.
Kravchenko, A.V. (2013). Ot redaktora. In Studia linguistica cognitiva. Vyp. 3. Kognitivnaya dinamika v yazykovykh vzaimodeystviyakh (pp. 4-5). Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.
Linell, P. (2009). Pis'mennoyazykovaya predvzyatost' lingvistiki kak nauchnoy otrasli. In Studia linguistica cognitiva. Vyp. 2. Nauka o yazyke v izmenyayushcheysya paradigme znaniya (pp. 153-192). Irkutsk: BGUEP.
Lisanyuk, E.N. (2012). Kognitivnyy podkhod i sis-temnaya model' argumentatsii. Ratsio.ru, 8, 46-65.
Poya, D. (1970). Matematicheskoe otkrytie. Moscow.
Ryzhova, L.P. (2004). Polifoniya i argumentatsiya v modeli integrirovannoy pragmatiki O. Dyukro. Filologicheskie nauki, 4, 94-104.
Frank, S.L. (1995). Predmet znaniya. Dusha cheloveka. Sankt-Peterburg.
Khizanshvili, D.V. (2011). Ratsional'nost' argumentatsii s tochki zreniya kognitivnogo podkhoda. RATsIO.ru, 6, 128-146.
Khoroshev, A.N. (1999). Vvedenie v upravlenie proektirovaniem mekhanicheskikh sistem. Belgorod.
Yazyk i mysl': Sovremennaya kognitivnaya lingvistika (2015). Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur.
Alderton, S. (1981). A processual analysis of argumentation in polarizing groups. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation, Annadale, VA: Speech Communication association (pp. 693-703).
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1983). L'argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. (1989). Argumentativity and informativity. In M. Meyer (ed.), From metaphysics to rhetoric (pp. 71-87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Benoit, P.J. & O`Keefe, B.J. (1982). Children`s ar-guments. In J.R. Cox & C.A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp. 154-183). Southern Illinois Press.
Billig, M. (2003). Political Communication. In D.O. Sears, L. Huddy and R. Jervis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 222-250). N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Brockriede, W.E. (1975). «Where is argu-ment?». Journal of the American Forensic Association, 11, 179-182.
Cowley, S.J., Moodley, S. & Fiori-Cowley, A. (2004a). Grounding signs of culture: primary intersub-jectivity in social semiosis. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11/2, 109-132.
Cowley, S.J. (2004b). Simulating others: the basis of human cognition? Language Sciences, 26/3, 273-299.
Cowley, S.J. (2009). Distributed language and dynamics. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 497-507.
Cowley, S.J. (2011). Distributed Langiage. John Benjamins Publishing.
Cowley, S.J. & Harvey, M.I. (2015). The Illusion of Common Ground. In New Ideas in Psychology Elsevier. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/aip/0732118X (data obrashcheniya 27.11.15).
Dessalles, J.-L. (2008). A computational model of argumentation in everyday conversation: a problem-centered approach. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, A. Hunter (eds.), Computational Models of Argument Proceedings of COMMA (pp. 128-133). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Goodnight, G.T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument. A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214-227.
Guillem, S.M. (2009). Argumentation, meta-discourse and social cognition: organizing knowledge in political communication. Discourse & Society, 20, 727-746.
Hutchins, E. (2001). Distributed cognition. The International Encyclopedia of the Social and behavioral Sciences (pp. 2068-2072). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1982). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 77-90.
Levinson, D. (2008). Licensing of Negative Polarity Particles Yet, Anymore, Either and Neither. Dissertation, Department of Linguistics and the Committee on Graduate Studies of Stanford University.
Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J. (1980). Auto-poesis: The Realization of the Living. Springer Science & Business Media.
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
Meyers, R.A. & Seibold, D.R. (1986). Interactional and Non-Interactional Perspectives on Interpersonal Argument. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst et al (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation (pp. 205-215). Dordrecht: Foris Publications Holland.
Oswald, S. (2007). Argumentation and Cognition: Can Pragma-Dialectics Interplay with Pragma-Semantics? Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 1, 148-155.
Pasquer, P., Rahwan, I., Dignum, F. & So-nenberg, L. (2007). Argumentation and Persuasion in the Cognitive Coherence Theory: Arg MAS 2006, LNAI 4766 (pp. 193-210). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Ra˛czaszek-Leonardi, J. (2009). Symbols as constraints: the structuring role of dynamics and self-organization in natural language. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 653-676.
Steffensen, S.V. (2012). Care and conversing in dialogical systems. Language Science, 34, 513-531.
Tindale, C.W. (1999). Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Pages:  112-122

Back to the list



Login:
Password: