Argumentation in the Pandemic Media Discourse: Decoding Rhetoric Practice

Purpose. The paper examines argumentation in the pandemic media discourse. Within the concept of decoding rhetoric, argumentation is considered a procedure for effective text formation acting as an instrument of influence.

Method. The research method used is argument reconstruction based on the following parameters: a thesis, types of arguments, and argumentation structures. The material has been selected according to the criterion of an addressee  of the media discourse, where the addressee is a politician, a doctor, or a publicist.

Results. Media texts about the pandemic demonstrate that politicians propose orthodox theses, whereas doctor (D. Protsenko) proposes prescriptive ones and publicist (D. Bykov) – paradoxical ones.

Politicians use the universal system and rational arguments based on statistics. The influencing message of D. Protsenko’s media text is formed due to personal empirical argumentation. D. Bykov relies on collective empirical argumentation.

Concerning the argumentation structures, coordinate argumentation dominates in the media texts of politicians, making it possible to defend their opinion in the most revealing way. D. Protsenko combines coordinate argumentation with the subordinate one, creating opportunities for interpretation. The text of D. Bykov does not show any steady tendencies for argumentative structuring, reflecting a creative approach to text formation.

Conclusion. The argument reconstruction reveals mechanisms of text formation and decodes the pragmatic motives of the speakers in the pandemic media discourse.

1. Alekseev A. P. Argumentatsiya [Argumentation]. In: Panov M. I. (ed.). Effektivnaya kommunika- tsiya: istoriya, teoriya, praktika: slovar'-spravochnik [Effective Communication: History, Theory, Practice]. Moscow, KRPA Olimp Publ., 2005, pp. 448–450. (in Russ.)

2. Anisimova T. V., Gimpelson E. G. Sovremennaya delovaya ritorika [Modern Business Rhetoric]. Textbook. Moscow, MPSI Publ., Voronezh, MODEK Publ., 2004, 432 p. (in Russ.)

3. Asatryan M. V. Ekstrapolyatsiya i argumentatsiya [Extrapolation and Argumentation]. In: Filosof- skie problemy argumentatsii [Philosophical Problems of Argumentation]. Erevan, 1986, p. 61. (in Russ.)

4. Bashkova I. V. COVID-19 – Kovid: rusifikatsiya internatsionalizma [COVID-19 - КОВИД: Adaptation of an International Term to the Russian Language]. Mir nauki, kul'tury, obrazovaniya [World of Science, Culture, Education], 2020, no. 6 (85), pp. 689–692. (in Russ.) DOI 10.24412/19915500-2020-685-689-692 Baudrillard J. Simulacres et simulation. aris, alil e, 1981, 235 p.

5. Demiyankov V. Z. Effektivnost' argumentatsii kak rechevogo vozdeistviya [The Effectiveness of Argumentation as a Persuasion]. In: Problemy effektivnosti rechevoi kommunikatsii [Problems of the Effectiveness of Speech Communication]. Moscow, INION AN SSSR Publ., 1989, p. 13–40. (in Russ.)

6. Eemeren F. Kh. van. Sovremennoe sostoyanie teorii argumentatsii [The Current State of the Argumentation Theory]. In: Vazhneyshie kontseptsii teorii argumentatsii [Crucial Concepts of the

7. Theory of Argumentation]. St. Petersburg, SPbSU Press, 2006, pp. 14–33. (in Russ.)

8. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa, Uni. of Alabama Press, 1993, 197 p.

9. Feofanov K. A. Tendentsii mezhdunarodnogo razvitiya v usloviyakh pandemii [Trends of International Development under Conditions of the Pandemic]. Sotsial'no-gumanitarnye znaniya [Social and Humanitarian Knowledge], 2020, no. 6, pp. 7–21. (in Russ.) DOI 10.34823/SGZ.2020.5.51474

10. Golyshkina L. A. Supra-phrasal Structure of the Rhetorical Text. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2021, no. 2, pp. 283–296. (in Russ.) DOI 10.17223/18137083/75/20

11. Ivin A. A. Ritorika: iskusstvo ubezhdat' [Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion]. Textbook. Moscow, FAIR-PRESS Publ., 2003, 304 p. (in Russ.)

12. Khutyz I. P., Kolchevskaya V. A. Persuazivnost': spetsifika fenomena v nekotorykh tipakh insti- tutsional'nogo diskursa [Persuasiveness: The Specificity of the Phenomenon in Some Types of Institutional Discourse]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philological Sciences. Theory and Practice Issues], 2018, no. 2 (80), pt. 2, pp. 391–394. (in Russ.)

13. Kozlovskaya N. V. “Koronavirus: boi prodolzhaetsya…” (metafora voiny v pandemiinom diskur- se) [“Coronavirus: The Battle Continues…” (A Metaphor for War in andemic Discourse)]. In: Kozlovskaya N. V. (ed.). Novye slova i slovari novykh slov. 2020 [New Words and Dictionaries of New Words. 2020]. Collection of scientific papers. St. Petersburg, ILI RAN Publ., 2020, pp. 101–109. (in Russ.)

14. Krongauz M. A. Screenlife v epokhu karantina [Screenlife in the Age of Coronavirus Lockdown]. Kommunikativnye issledovaniya [Communicative Research], 2020, no. 4, pp. 735–744. (in Russ.) DOI 10.24147/2413-6182.2020.7(4).735-744

15. Moskvin V. P. Argumentativnaya ritorika: teoreticheskii kurs dlya filologov [Argumentative Rhetoric: A Theoretical Course for Philologists]. Rostov on Don, Feniks, 2008, 637 p. (in Russ.)

16. Nikitina O. A., Gudkova O. A. Kontaminatsiya kak proyavlenie igrovogo slovotvorchestva v dis- kurse o pandemii COVID-19 (na materiale novoobrazovanii nemetskogo yazyka) [Contamination as a Manifestation of the Ludic Word Creation in the Discourse about the COVID-19 Pandemic (Based on the Material of the New German Words)]. Aktual'nye voprosy sovremennoi filologii i zhurnalistiki [Actual Issues of Modern Philology and Journalism], 2020, no. 4 (39), pp. 123–132. (in Russ.) DOI 10.36622/AQMPJ.2020.39.4.017

17. Perelman Kh., Olbrekht-Tyteka L. Iz knigi “Novaya ritorika: traktat ob argumentatsii” [From the Book “New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation”]. In.: Yazyk i modelirovanie sotsial'nogo vzaimodeistviya [Language and Modeling of Social Interaction]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1987, pp. 207–264. (in Russ.)

18. Rees M. A. van. Interpretatsiya i rekonstruktsiya argumentatsii [Interpretation and Reconstruction of Argumentation]. In: Vazhneishie kontseptsii teorii argumentatsii [Crucial Concepts of the Theory of Argumentation]. St. Petersburg, SPbSU Press, 2006, pp. 198–238. (in Russ.)

19. Severskaya O. I. Kovidioty na karantikulakh: koronavirusnyi slovar' kak diagnosticheskoe pole ak- tual'nykh diskursivnykh praktik [Covidiots on Coronacation: Coronaviral Lexicon as a Diagnostic Field for Actual Discoursive Practices]. Kommunikativnye issledovaniya [Communicative Research], 2020, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 887–906. (in Russ.) DOI 10.24147/2413-6182.2020. 7(4).887-906

20. Snuk Khenkemans A. F. Struktury argumentatsii [Argumentation Structures]. In: Vazhneishie kontseptsii teorii argumentatsii [Crucial Concepts of the Theory of Argumentation]. St. Pe- tersburg, SPbSU Press, 2006, pp. 123–161. (in Russ.)