Argumentative Mistakes as Factor in Media Discourse Transformation (by the Example of Public Discussion Scripts)
Barebina Natalia Sergeevna
Baikal State University
Submitted: 16.07.2021
Abstract. The paper aims to reveal argumentative mistakes role in the media discourse transformation. Scientific originality of the study lies in the fact that the author describes essence of an addresser/observer’s position by the example of critical discussion as methodological abstraction applied in argumentation theory. The research findings are as follows: the author identifies argumentative mistakes that distort the meaning, influence the discussion outcome, promote carnivalization and gamification of the public discussion discourse. A new argumentative mistake "expert distrust" is described and the strategy to extrapolate the negative image of a discussion participant to the discussed issues is revealed.
Key words and phrases: дискуссия, аргументация, ошибки, медиадискурс, аудитория, discussion, argumentation, mistakes, media discourse, audience
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Buryakovskaya V. A. Kommunikativnye kharakteristiki massovoi kul'tury v mediinom diskurse (na materiale russkogo i angliiskogo yazykov). Volgograd: Peremena, 2014. 228 s.
Vasil'ev L. G. Argumentatsiya i ee ponimanie: logiko-lingvisticheskii podkhod. Kaluga: Kaluzh. gos. un-t im. K. E. Tsiolkovskogo, 2014. 331 s.
Evdokimov V. A. Auditoriya mass-media kak ob"ekt i sub"ekt kommunikatsii // Nauka o cheloveke: gumanitarnye issledovaniya. 2010. № 6. S. 136-142.
Eemeren F. Kh. van, Grootendorst R. Rechevye akty v argumentativnykh diskussiyakh. Teoreticheskaya model' analiza diskussii, napravlennykh na razreshenie konflikta mnenii / per. s angl. E. A. Bogoyavlenskoi. SPb.: Vasil'evskii ostrov, 1994. 239 s.
Zheltukhina M. R. Vozdeistvie mediadiskursa na adresata. Volgograd: Peremena, 2014. 91 s.
Karasik V. I. Yazykovaya plastika obshcheniya. M.: Gnozis, 2021. 536 s.
Karasik V. I. Yazykovaya spiral': tsennosti, znaki, motivy. M.: Gnozis, 2019. 424 s.
Karimov A. R. Glubokoe raznoglasie i argumentativnye dobrodeteli // Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul'tura. 2018. № 1. S. 21-24.
Karimov A. R. Epistemologiya dobrodetelei. SPb.: Aleteiya, 2019. 428 s.
Lisanyuk E. N. Logiko-kognitivnaya teoriya argumentatsii: diss. … d. filos. n. SPb., 2015. 297 s.
Maklyuen M. Ponimanie Media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka / per. s angl. V. Nikolaeva. M.: Zhukovskii; Kanon-press-Ts, 2003. 464 s.
Ostorozhno: spor! Za privivku ili protiv [Elektronnyi resurs]: debaty o vaktsinatsii. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nns7G5flDyU (data obrashcheniya: 25.07.2021).
Polonskii A. V. Kategorial'naya i funktsional'naya sushchnost' adresatnosti: na materiale russkogo yazyka v sopostavlenii s pol'skim: diss. … d. filol. n. Belgorod, 1999. 451 s.
Sorina G. V. Voprosno-otvetnaya protsedura v argumentatsionnoi deyatel'nosti // Teoriya i praktika argumentatsii. M.: In-t filosofii RAN, 2001. S. 71-89.
Shevchenko A. A. Epistemologiya i dobrodeteli // Sibirskii filosofskii zhurnal. 2016. T. 14. № 4. S. 82-92.
Aberdein A. The vices of argument // Topoi. 2016. Vol. 35. № 2. R. 413-422.
Cohen D. Arguments that backfire [Elektronnyi resurs] // The uses of argument / ed. by D. Hitchcock, D. F. Hamilton. OSSA, 2005. P. 58-65. URL: https://philpapers.org/rec/COHATB-2 (data obrashcheniya: 10.08.2021).
Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 210 p.
Groarke L., Tindale C. W. Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking. 3rd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003. 488 p.
Hample D. The Arguers // Informal Logic. 2007. Vol. 27. № 2. P. 163-178.
Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. 368 p.
Walton D. N. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997. 300 p.
Webster J. G. The Audience // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 1998. № 42. P. 109-207.
Woods J. H. The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004. 378 p.
Русский
