Logical and linguistic features of conductive arguments in environmental media discourse

Barebina Natalya Sergeevna ORCID: 0000-0001-5883-6773 Doctor of Philology Associate Professor; Department of Foreign Languages; Irkutsk State Transport University 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Chernyshevsky str., 15 svirel23@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

Zibrov Dmitrii Anatol'evich ORCID: 0000-0002-9986-2369 PhD in Philology Independent Researcher 664007, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Karl Liebknecht str., 45a, sq. 17 matou45@yandex.ru

The problem of inferences in language has long attracted the attention of scientists and, as the analysis of the literature shows, is considered extremely widely. Even a small review of the issues related to the theoretical and methodological interpretation of the concept of inference in the projection on linguistics requires extensive publication of a monographic nature. Therefore, in this article we will focus only on one side of this issue, related to the structure of one of the types of non-deductive inferences. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that the object of our research in the form of conductive arguments is practically not studied in domestic linguistic and argumentological works, or is studied, but in other terms. At the same time, as the linguistic material shows, the elements of conduction are not a rare phenomenon in reasoning in natural language, and in some types of discourses their role requires special attention from the point of view of communicative and pragmatic meaning. As applied to our research object, this required solving some particular problems: 1) to analyze the term "conductive argument", 2) to carry out a methodological adaptation of the concept of conductive arguments in logic to reasoning in natural language, 3) to consider the linguistic implementation of conductive arguments.

The content of the term "conductive argument". In order to reveal the meaning of the conductive arguments, we present the necessary logical basis.

Inference is a mental procedure in which conclusions are drawn based on the presented premises or arguments. Premises and arguments have the form of statements of a factual type. The conclusion is presented by a statement that is derived from the premises. In inference, there is a logical transition from premises to conclusion in one step, which makes it the simplest form of reasoning (example 1):

(1) Christmas is always Dec. 25th (Large package)

Today is Dec. 25th (Smaller Package)

Therefore, it's Christmas (Conclusion)

It is believed that inference explicates a person's ability to use logical methods to substantiate statements or obtain new information from available data. Inference in natural language allows you to see cause-and-effect relationships and analyze linguistic means for logical inference and substantiation of statements. Conclusions from premises are divided into demonstrative (as in example (1), where the conclusion from true premises is inevitably true, which is called deduction) and non-demonstrative. In the second case, we are talking about non-deductive reasoning, where the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, as, for example, in inductive reasoning (example 2).

(2) This cat is black.

That cat is black.

A third cat is black.

Therefore all cats are black.

At the same time, there is an increment of information in non-demonstrative reasoning: in example (2), such an increment is realized in possible counterarguments about gray, red and other cats. Non-demonstrative reasoning is also presented in abduction, analogy, and statistical conclusions.

Researchers, mostly foreign, speak of another class of arguments that are fundamentally different from those in demonstrative and non-demonstrative conclusions ^{[9; 10; 15; 17; 18; 19; 20]}. The point is that the premises in the conclusion can be both true and false in relation to the conclusion. At first glance, this position is paradoxical, but on the other hand, it very accurately reflects the non-ordinary nature of human thinking. Indeed, from the point of view of logic, a judgment can be either false or true. However, this excludes a number of intermediate arguments that can give a reasonable balanced conclusion. Thus, conductive arguments have a different dialectical role than arguments in demonstrative reasoning. Their meaning is to consider a variety of arguments "for" and "against" with scalarity of features. Such a situation is possible in the argumentation mode, which, as is known, is the operationalization of logic in natural language ^{[11; 12]}. If in logic there is a compulsion to prove from premises, then in the practice of argumentation there is some gap for disagreement and dialogue.

Let's consider the interpretations and examples of conductive arguments in the argumentation dictionary ^[4]. K. Plantin demonstrates them in the following samples.

1. The reasoning contains a single argument for the conclusion:

(3) You ought to help him because he has been very kind to you.

2. The reasoning provides several arguments for the conclusion:

(4) You ought to take your son to the movie, because you promised to do so, it is a good movie, and you have nothing better to do this afternoon.

3. The reasoning is organized in such a way that the conclusion is considered from the affirmative and negative sides. In this case, the arguments "against" are included in the reasoning and combined with the arguments in favor of the conclusion.

(5) Although your lawn needs cutting, you ought to take your son to the movie because the picture is ideal for children and will be gone by tomorrow.

The third sample in example (5) corresponds to the concept of a conductive argument. The first sample is an example of a single argument, and the second is an example of multiple arguments in support of a conclusion.

Functions of the conductive argument. As you can see, conductive arguments are competing arguments that conflict with other arguments in support of the conclusion. It can be said that a conductive argument is a counterargument embedded in the structure of the proof.

Therefore, it is important to consider its function. Some researchers note the special role of conductive arguments in the formation of hypotheses. Thus, D. Gurden and T. Fischer see in them the function of a "better explanation", saying that conductive reasoning makes it possible to conduct a kind of thought experiment, weighing all the pros and cons ^[5]. D. A. Bockmelder emphasizes the dialectical function of conductive arguments, believing that they leave the opponent's argument in the However, it indicates some negative (or opposite) characteristic of the thesis ^{[2, p. 63]}. H. Hansen draws attention to the fact that conductive arguments in the form of counter-arguments indicate a balance of counter-considerations ^[6]. R. H. Johnson identifies the essence of such arguments regarding the trajectory of inference and says that this is not necessarily a denial, but also a proactive response to an alleged objection ^[8]. R. S. Pinto defines the idea of weighing risk in conductive reasoning as significant, the scientist says that the relevant arguments contain the potential for gradation of signs in favor of more a weighty conclusion ^[13]. Some researchers, for example, D. Hitchcock and H. Wolrapp ^[7], point out that conductive arguments belong to the value system of practical argumentation and show not the logic, but the acceptability of arguments during decision-making.

The structure of the conductive argument. Let's look at examples of conductive arguments. There are several variants of reasoning with conductive arguments of the form "A, although B", "despite A, B", "A, but B".

(6) In spite of a certain dissonance, that piece of music is beautiful because of its dynamic quality and its final conclusion. In this example, the conductive argument stands in the preposition and represents an argument "against", which is then outweighed by two arguments in favor of the value of a musical work – the music is beautiful, the finale is dynamic.

(7) I use waste making energy, because I travel 350 miles a week, even though I write on both sides of a paper. In this example, a conclusion is formed in favor of using energy from waste production. The conductive argument is marked by the opposition even though and is located after the basic construction of the conclusion, which includes the argument that the speaker moves a lot, which means he spoils the ecology. But he writes on two sides of the sheet, contributing to the conservation of resources.

(8) You should take you son to the movies, even though your lawn needs cutting and you don’t feel like it. In the example, the reasoned conclusion that the son needs to be taken to the cinema is at the beginning, then two arguments are given that anticipate objections. Obviously, the speaker knows well that the lawn needs to be mowed, and that the recipient does not want to go to the cinema with his son.

(9) I know, the movie is ideal for children and won’t be showing in the cinema after tomorrow, but you ought to cut your lawn. In this example, we see the reverse structure of reasoning, where the conclusion is in progression and the arguments precede it. Moreover, as we can see, the arguments contain counter-images not in favor of the conclusion.

In examples (6) and (7) we can talk about balancing conductive arguments. Examples (8) and (9) contain a refutation of the intended objections of the addressee.

The semantics of the arguments allows you to refine the record:

example (6) "despite – A, conclusion, because + A",

example (7) "conclusion, because +A, although – A",

example (8) "conclusion, although – A",

example (9) "Ah, although the conclusion".

Explication of conductive arguments in discourse. Let us now turn to examples of conductive arguments in the environmental media discourse. Environmental media discourse is a discussion of environmental problems, issues and solutions in the media ^[16]. It covers a wide range of topics related to the environment, climate change, conservation of natural resources, the impact of human activities on ecosystems, as well as other aspects of ecology. Our choice of this linguistic material is due to the fact that this discourse is a dynamic linguistic practice in which logical rational argumentation is combined with rhetorical strategies ^[1]. And in general, the semiosphere of ecological discourse, as A. A. notes. Leontiev has "concepts of universal values of an ecological worldview", which, however, are used not only for environmental purposes, but also for purposes related to politics, advertising, and a range of issues promoted within the framework of radical social movements ^{[4, p. 231]}. That is, arguments in this type of discourse can be not only logically universal, but also pragmatically acceptable.

To explicate conductive arguments, we will use the argumentative functions model, which is a technique for reconstructing the argumentative type of discourse. According to this model, it is possible to isolate the minimum element of argumentation in the text, which, according to L. G. Vasiliev, is a statement with a certain argumentative function ^{[3, p. 140]}. Within the framework of another unit of analysis, the Argumentative Step, which is a set of argumentative functions, elements are further identified that have the ability to function as an argument and be recognized as such [ibid.]. Schematically, an Argumentative Step can be represented as the proposition "argument→inference→thesis". A judgment within the framework of an Argumentative Step can be identified as an element that performs the function of an argument or argument, as well as an element that performs the function of a thesis or conclusion. So, in the example (2) discussed earlier, the three elements This cat is black, That cat is black, and A third cat is black are arguments, and the judgment Therefore all cats are black is a conclusion or thesis. The identification independence of these elements as a component of argumentation, as we can see, can be correctly interpreted only within the framework of an Argumentative Step. Otherwise, they may function, for example, as statements and not have the argumentative functions of an argument or thesis.

Having analyzed examples of environmental media discourse using the argumentative function model, we have identified several of the most common cases of conductive arguments, which we will illustrate with the following examples.

(10) “We particularly wanted to organise gen Z and millennials because it felt like it was a generation that had a shared story and a shared experience of the world. Like whether you’re 31 like me or you’re 16, we have something in common, which is we’ve only known crisis – we were born into a climate crisis, there’s been economic crashes, work is becoming increasingly precarious, our communities are changing for the worse in many ways – and that could bind our our generations together to fight for an alternative.”

The thesis of this fragment is explicit: We particularly wanted to organize gen Z and millennials (the author calls for organizing Generation Z and millennials). The judgment it felt like it was a generation that had a shared story and a shared experience of the world (this generation has a common history and a common experience of the world) is an inference, that is, a base illustrating the connection between a thesis and arguments.

Next, in the example, we find the argument: we have something in common (we have something in common). This argument itself needs to be confirmed, which contains the following text fragment: Like whether you're 31 like me or you're 16, we were born into a climate crisis, there's been economic crashes, work is becoming increasingly precarious, our communities are changing for the worse in many ways (For example, regardless of moreover, whether you are 31, like me, or 16, we have something in common: we only know the crisis - we were born in a climate crisis, there were economic disasters, jobs are becoming more unstable, our communities are changing for the worse in many ways). In the preposition of the argument, we find a subordinate construction Like whether you're 31 like me or you're 16, which refers to a possible objection regarding the issue of age boundaries of generations Z and millennials, as well as why the author considers himself to be among these generations. In a structural sense, this construction is a reservation-a counterargument in which a rebuttal of a possible objection is presented. This element is an example of a conductive argument, since it belongs to the field of arguments against the conclusion.

Let's consider another example (11).

(11) “I hope the judgment is a tipping point and will make it much harder for any new oil and gas sector to be exploited both in the UK and in other countries with similar legislation. But there’s already more than enough oil and gas and coal in production to wreck the climate, even if we stopped all new production today, so I just don’t see us weaning ourselves off it fast enough”.

The example presents two opposite elements: the thesis that the climate decision will be a turning point and will make it difficult to operate the oil and gas complex (I hope the judgment is a tipping point and will make it much harder for any new oil and gas sector to be exploited). That is, in this speech, a positive assessment of the solution is given + A. The implicit counterthesis indicates the uselessness of the solution under discussion (I just don't see us weaning ourselves off it fast enough). It includes a group of arguments in support of – A: But there's already more than enough oil and gas and coal in production to wreck the climate; even if we stopped all new production today. In this example, the conductive arguments serve as arguments to justify the counterthesis.

The following example (12) shows a fragment of the argument against the construction of a nuclear power plant on one of the coastal zones in Kenya.

(12) “This is a tourist town. People swim in the ocean, they scuba-dive and water ski. There would [certainly] be fear of going into the ocean a few miles down the road from the nuclear power station … And if tourism dies then people who own properties will not be able to afford to maintain them. Ultimately, people won’t want to buy a property here, they’ll look elsewhere.”

The example presents the thesis that a tourist city is not suitable for the construction of a nuclear facility. The arguments are statements that say that people swim, dive, and water ski. The connection between the arguments and the thesis is expressed explicitly and consists in the fact that people will no longer be able to rest there: There would [certainly] be fear of going into the ocean a few miles down the road from the nuclear power station. Next, the example reveals a fragment unrelated to ecology and only indirectly related to tourism: people won't want to buy a property here. It includes a group of arguments supporting the claim regarding the purchase of real estate in the city. However, this group does not contradict the main thesis, but represents a more extended consideration of the topic and indicates which objects or situations this statement covers, which allows us to talk about the extension of the thesis.

Conclusions. In this article, we have analyzed one of the varieties of ecological discourse. It is expected that an argumentative way of presenting information is widely used in the media to substantiate environmental issues. The analysis of the argumentative component of ecological toposes based on the model of argumentative functions allows us to identify the structure of argumentation. This model shows that conductive elements are used in reasoning. Structurally, they belong to the group of arguments supporting the counterthesis, and conductive arguments in the form of a clause preventing possible objections are frequent.

In the analyzed texts in English, the studied varieties of arguments have markers of opposition and limitations in the form of conjunctions, particles, prepositions but, even, although, even if, in spite of, despite of, even if, unless. The semantics of conductive arguments within an Argumentative Step consists in conveying the meaning of balance, weighing arguments, limiting objections, and extension.

We see the prospect of research in the study of the communicative potential of conductive reasoning in various discursive practices.

List of illustrative material

(1-2) The author's card file

(3–9) Plantin C. Conductive Argument // Dictionnaire de l'argumentation 2021. URL: https://icar.cnrs.fr/dicoplantin/conductive-argument-e/

(10) Gayle D. You’re letting our generation down: the green activists warning of a bad deal for young people under Labour // The Guardian Wed 26 Jun 2024. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/26/green-new-deal-rising-climate-group-young-people-labour

(11) Kaminski I. Sarah Finch: climate activism ‘early adopter’ behind supreme court win // The Guardian. Wed 26 Jun 2024. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/26/sarah-finch-climate-activism-uk-supreme-court-win

(12) Kenya’s first nuclear plant: why plans face fierce opposition in country’s coastal paradise // The Guardian. Mon 17 Jun 2024. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/17/kenya-plans-first-nuclear-power-plant-kilifi-opposition-activists