Supra-phrasal structure of the rhetorical text

The study deals with the mechanisms of the supra-phrasal structure of a specific text type – a rhetorical one, with persuasion as the basic property. Given this text type specifics, a two-stage procedure of analysis, a synthesis of methodological principles of text linguistics and theory of argumentation, is suggested. The study considers a communicative register or a type of speech, proposed by G. A. Zolotova in the concept of communicative syntax, as a unit of text formation. Speech registers are the certain ways of mental and sensory fixation of the world picture fragments manifesting the different degrees of the speaker’s abstraction from reality. The first stage of the analysis describes the selection of communicative registers pro-duced by the subject of speech from the paradigm of the corresponding text units. Simultane-ously, the functionality of the speech types in constructing argumentation as a persuasive pro-cess is determined. The second stage studies the combinations of speech registers involving an argument reconstruction, allowing us to observe both text formation and text impact effect formation related to semantics formation. Analysis of the texts actualized in various discur-sive practices (presentation and aesthetic, political, religious, scientific, and educational) has identified the principles of selection and combination of text components as well as argumentation types (evidential and narrative) demonstrating the originality of supra-phrasal structure and typological uniqueness of the rhetorical text.

The Form of Arguments Using Argument Reconstruction in Online Media Articles

This research aimed to identify the form of arguments in online media articles using argument reconstruction. The data were argumentative texts written in online media article in 2017 in www.hipwee.com, malesbanget.com, and www.idntimes.com. The data studied were 44 paragraphs consisting of 150 sentences. The approach used was qualitative approach by using content analysis method. This research used the triangulation technique (combination). The simultaneous data collection was coupled with data credibility tests with various data collection techniques and sources. Meanwhile, means of documentation and content analysis techniques were done to collect the data. The results indicate that the often used reasonings in online media articles are the generalization in 11 paragraphs and categorical syllogism in 28 paragraphs. The results of this research can be used to find out and develop ways of writing online media articles for writers and readers of online media articles.

What is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Science Research

Aim/Purpose: Collaborative, interdisciplinary research is growing rapidly, but we still have limited and fragmented understanding of what is arguably the heart of such research—collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning (CIR). Background: This article integrates neo-Pragmatist theories of reasoning with insights from literature on interdisciplinary research to develop a working definition of collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning. The article then applies this definition to an empirical example to demonstrate its utility. Methodology: The empirical example is an excerpt from a Toolbox workshop transcript. The article reconstructs a cogent, inductive, interdisciplinary argument from the excerpt to show how CIR can proceed in an actual team. Contribution: The study contributes operational definitions of ‘reasoning together’ and ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning’ to existing literature. It also demonstrates empirical methods for operationalizing these definitions, with the argument reconstruction providing a brief case study in how teams reason together. Findings: 1. Collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning is the attempted integration of disciplinary contributions to exchange, evaluate, and assert claims that enable shared understanding and eventually action in a local context. 2. Pragma-dialectic argument reconstruction with conversation analysis is a method for observing such reasoning from a transcript. 3. The example team developed a strong inductive argument to integrate their disciplinary contributions about modeling. Recommendations for Practitioners: 1. Interdisciplinary work requires agreeing with teammates about what is assertible and why. 2. To assert something together legitimately requires making a cogent, integrated argument. Recommendation for Researchers: 1. An argument is the basic unit of analysis for interdisciplinary integration. 2. To assess the argument’s cogency, it is helpful to reconstruct it using pragma-dialectic principles and conversation analysis tools. 3. To assess the argument’s interdisciplinary integration and participant roles in the integration, it is helpful to graph the flow of words as a Sankey chart from participant-disciplines to the argument conclusion. Future Research: How does this definition of CIR relate to other interdisciplinary ‘cognition’ or ‘learning’ type theories? How can practitioners and theorists tell the difference between true intersubjectivity and superficial agreeableness in these dialogues? What makes an instance of CIR ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How does collaborative, transdisciplinary reasoning differ from CIR, if at all?