title: Rhetorical argumentation in popular science discourse: Features and prospects
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Volf, Marina N.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2020-11-20T17:43:30Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2020-11-20T17:43:30Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-09
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Volf M.N. Rhetorical argumentation in popular science discourse: Features and prospects. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2020, vol.  36, issue  3, pp. 426–440
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.301
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/20808
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The nature of popular science discourse in recent decades has acquired a convincing function, while it is addressed to an audience that is not always loyal to science. There are new
  requirements for writing argumentative popular science texts and they must contain arguments that depend on the target audience. The need for a broad mastery of the skill of writing
  well-reasoned popular science texts is associated with the issues of understanding how successfully their function has been implemented to convince the audience and thе explication
  of technologies that help make these texts convincing, including the creation of a database of
  typical basic arguments. It is believed that the methods of computer analysis used in computational rhetoric can be used to study the argumentative specifics of popular science literature,
  and rhetorical argumentation should be the most productive approach to argumentation in a
  popular science text because only it provides ways of interacting with the audience. However,
  there are constraints for the development of this direction that make it difficult to find and
  annotate arguments in a popular science text, namely: an ambiguity in understanding the
  argument and argumentation, modeling various arguments depending on the understanding
  of their structure and function, and finally, the target audience modeling. Explication of arguments in the text is possible through linguistic markers, but there is a problem of establishing
  the boundaries of the argument. Identifying the internal structure of text segment relationships solves this problem, however, annotating the text is sensitive to certain methods of modeling argumentation. Based on the basic model of Toulmin’s argument, the special aspects of
  modeling rhetorical argumentation and its dependence on the target audience are illustrated.
  It is proposed that the concept of a universal audience can hardly be adapted to practical tasks,
  and criteria that are consistent with the format of truths and the format of audience values, the
  implementation of which could bring the target audience closer to an universal one. The author demonstrates the features in the pragma-dialectical approach, which, despite its popularity in computational rhetoric, do not allow it to be fully adapted to popular science discourse.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.description.sponsorship
metadata.value: The reported study was funded by RFBR (Russian Foundation for Basic Research) according to the
  research project “Convergence” no. 18-00-1376 (18-00-00889).
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies;Volume 36; Issue 3
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: popular science discourse
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: argumentation models
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: rhetorical argumentation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: text annotation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: modeling
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: audience
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Rhetorical argumentation in popular science discourse: Features and prospects
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 426-440.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/20808/1/426-440.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 733,27 kB