On the question of the linguistic and cultural features of the Eastern Argumentative Model in Political Ecology

Barebina Natal'ya Sergeevna Doctor of Philology Associate professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Irkutsk State Transport University 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Chernyshevsky str., 15, of. D-718 svirel23@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

Fan Chzhiyun Lecturer, Postgraduate student, Chinese Language Center, Confucius Institute, Irkutsk State University 664082, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Ulaanbaatar str., 6 fangzhiyong1979@mail.ru

Introduction. Ecology is an area that is becoming more and more relevant in the modern world. The increased attention to environmental issues requires serious analysis and understanding of how this topic is considered at different cultural venues. In the scientific literature we find data on such a phenomenon as political ecology ^[1-3]. Scientists have proved that public speech itself is a powerful tool of influence. This is explained by many reasons: expressiveness of speech, emotionality, evaluativeness, rhetorical structures ^[4]. But the researchers emphasize that the impact of political speech is achieved by argumentation, which provides persuasiveness. The description of the Chinese argumentation style fixes the axiomatics of intuitiveness, introversion, appeal to rituals, traditions, appeal to parables, the use of hints, which is expressed in the nonlinearity of logic. This ultimately makes China's logic incomprehensible to a Westerner. As a result, only the Western style of argumentation is well-known and popular in various fields. We know almost nothing about the Oriental style of argumentation. Sporadic research on this issue, however, leaves no doubt that argumentation and attitude to the dispute in Chinese culture should be the subject of careful scientific reflection. Thus, although the ancient Eastern model may be an important component of environmental issues for some countries, the universality of the ecological idea allows using the Western model of argumentation in the international arena. Nevertheless, the cultural context is of great importance, which should be taken into account when formulating and implementing environmental protection policies in different countries of the world.

Speech effects. The linguistic problem of political ecology can be considered from several positions. Linguists have always been interested in speech effects. It is important to investigate its mechanisms on the verge of a balance between rationality and manipulation and even suggestion. Why is the question about manipulation? Because the role of political ecology can be designated as a tool for resolving controversial issues of environmental management by different subjects.

Political ecology puts forward the thesis of "environmental protection", which is based on various facts and ecosystem laws. All this requires compliance with the principles of rational nature management. But it is not this rational grain that is essential, but the fact that "environmental problems" are very easy to use to achieve political goals by states in the international arena. This has already been demonstrated by the example of countries such as Sweden, the USA, and Russia ^[5]. It is shown that the main topics discussed at the state level are resource depletion, large volumes of waste and garbage, global warming. Research on this issue in Chinese political discourse is sporadic and is still little known in the Russian-speaking scientific community.

Linguistic and cultural features of Eastern logical-argumentative knowledge. Being a technological and industrial leader in many fields and realizing the importance of ecological balance, China also cares about preserving its cultural and historical heritage. In this aspect, it is necessary to consider what are the key concepts or terms of China's ideal ecology. T. V. Ivchenko, Yu. Kupriyanov identified the following key terms that represent the ecological civilization in China: " development, ecology, environmental protection, green, innovation, coherence, balance , safety" ^[6]. But it is even more relevant to consider what the reasoning behind these concepts is. This question has long occupied the thoughts of scientists, since it is known that Eastern argumentation differs from Western. It is customary to contrast these two concepts in several categories that fit into a dichotomy: "eastern style of argumentation vs Western style of argumentation".

Table. The difference in argumentation styles (compiled according to ^{[7, p.17]})

The roots of such differences in argumentation styles lie in the difference between the logical systems of the East and the West, which, according to the studies of E. P. Borzova ^[8], A. A. Krushinsky ^[9], T. A. Madalimov ^[10], differ significantly. As A. A. Krushinsky notes, the game-theoretic conceptualization of the stratagem orientation of the Chinese mentality determines the difference between Eastern logical thought and the formal correctness of the logic of Western civilization ^{[11, p. 111]}. M. D. William suggests that the concept of Chinese logic is based mainly on induction methods. The scientist explains this by the fact that the methods used by Chinese thinkers to establish ideals tended to emphasize reasoning on the example of actions or behavior of key moral models, rather than deduce specific judgments about practical actions from general principles ^[12].

Speaking about logical constructions peculiar to Chinese logical and methodological thought, scientists mention, for example, a specific sequence of combinations of elements, namely, initial premises, foundations, examples, additions, conclusions ^[13]. S.E. Kryuchkova and E. V. Kryuchkova note special techniques peculiar to the Eastern tradition: the method of associations, references to precedents, the use of the last word, the use of examples as the basis of inductive reasoning ^[14].

It is established that the axiological aspect of argumentation in Chinese linguoculture is the concept of virtue developed in the Analects of Confucius ^[15], which differs significantly from the Western axiological concept of truth in argumentation. The communicative bases of argumentation in the Western and Eastern systems are also fundamentally different. If in the first case the dominant concept is the concept of persuading a diverse audience, then in the second the idea of advice or exhortation for a certain audience is explicated. This idea is associated with the risk to which the argumentator is exposed, and is known in the Western scientific tradition (see the works of G. Johnstone, who assigned a secondary role to persuasion, but emphasized the risk associated with disagreements when discussing his opinion ^{[16, p. 30]}), but, however, it has not been widely developed.

The peculiar development of the institution of dispute also played an important role in the existing difference in the forms of argumentation. A deep analysis of this issue conducted by S. E. Kryuchkova and E. V. Kryuchkova shows the development of this concept from quasi-disputes to real polemics, in which there were argumentative strategies peculiar to the Chinese dispute: double persuasion, fictional dispute, thinking by birth ^[14].

Analysis of argumentative structures. Returning to the topic of our research, it is important to note that in political ecology there is no understanding of which models are convincing for Chinese culture, and which ones, for example, for Russian culture. It is relevant to consider whether the ancient Eastern model is really used to argue environmental issues, or ecology is a desktop universal idea that for all languages argumentation takes place according to the same Western model. Or in other words: did Chinese borrow models of Western argumentation? The data obtained, we believe, will be valuable for comparative linguistics. To answer these questions requires in-depth research and a series of articles.

Therefore, we will begin our research by analyzing examples from the Chinese media on environmental issues by identifying the logical structure of argumentation. Speaking about the practice of argumentation, we cannot fail to mention the issue of formalization. In the Western tradition of argumentation, reasoning, as a rule, begins with the nomination of a thesis, which is further proved by bringing arguments, ends with a conclusion made on the basis of the arguments given. Such reasoning can be presented in the form of different models, the most common is S. Tulmin's argumentation scheme, which consists of three elements: data, claim, warrant, and three additional elements in the form of backing, qualifier, and refutation or exceptional circumstance (rebuttal). S. Zhou^[1] proves that classical Chinese argumentative texts are based on a structure based on writing in classical Chinese, reflecting the beginning of Chinese literature. This structure is known as an eight-part essay. Introduction (kit. ); the development of the theme (chin. ); the General reasoning (chin. ); the development of reasoning (chin. ); the Central argument (the whale. ); final discourse (the whale. ); linking of reasoning (chin. ); large linkage – total compositions (chin. --). In accordance with this, the Eastern tradition of argumentation assumes an abstract introduction from the thesis being approved, numerous deviations and distractions from the topic of discussion.

Here is an example of argumentation in the Chinese style from the treatise Lunheng ("Scales of judgments") Wang Chun (I century AD) translated by K. E. Baraboshkin:

(1) If you go to the mountains and look at the trees, then [among the trees] there will not be those about which it is unknown whether they are high or low. If you go to the field and look at the grass, then [among it] there will not be one by which you will not know whether it is thick or rare. However, it is impossible to cut down trees to build a house and collect grass to prepare medicines, [if] this knowledge about grass and trees cannot be put into practice. Thus, a person of great knowledge has well–read, but is not able to combine all this in reasoning and interpretation, such a [person] becomes the keeper of books that are not understood [for him] - [those about whom] Confucius said: "You know by heart all three hundred Songs, but you do not understand the state business entrusted to you ..." the same as the inability to cut down trees and harvest grass [in the absence of knowledge about their use]. Confucius found historical records [of the kingdom of Lu], with which he created Chunqiu and established principles, created ideas, praised and condemned, admired and reproached. [He is] the one who did not follow the historical records, the subtlest thoughts themselves came from his heart. Everyone appreciates someone who understands [something], appreciates [his] ability to apply [his knowledge]. But if you only recite by heart, memorize "Songs" and canons, even though it will be over a thousand chapters – [their talent] will be akin to the ability of a parrot to repeat [after others] speeches. To develop the meaning of ancient books, to pronounce speeches full of deep content – those who do not have outstanding abilities will not cope with this. Thus, there are quite a lot of those who have great knowledge in the world. But the creators of works over the past centuries have rarely met. In the modern era, the father and son of Liu Zizheng, Yang Ziyun and Huan Tan, like Wen, Wudi and Zhou-gong, appeared at the same time. In other cases, such people appear one at a time, usually it happens. These are pearls and jade, which are rare and therefore they are precious ^{[17, p. 81]}.

In this fragment, you can see signs of an oriental type of reasoning: a very abstract beginning about mountains, trees, grass, and a house. The development of reasoning in the form of a conclusion about felling trees and collecting grass, which serves as the basis for the central reasoning: A person of great knowledge who has well-read, but is not able to combine all this in reasoning and interpretation, becomes the keeper of books that are not understood for him. Concluding reasoning: Creators of works are rare, and they are precious. Also typical are references to the authority of Confucius, examples of enlighteners, metaphors (people are pearls and jade).

Now let's turn to examples of argumentation of ecological topos in the media. First, we reconstruct a small text of the environmental theme of the non-political discourse. Context: in recent years, due to the popularity of online sales, many people have been cutting dried branches of the Xin'an rhododendron and putting them up for sale on the Internet on a large scale, causing great harm to this plant. On the eve of the Chinese New Year, a CCTV reporter conducted an investigation in the Gagdatsi area under the jurisdiction of the Daxinganling region in Heilongjiang Province and found that, despite repeated bans by local authorities, dried branches of wild rhododendrons are still cut in large quantities here, which seriously threatens the survival of the species (example 2).

Translation ^[2]

We reconstruct this text according to the argumentative functions model, in which each text element is assigned one or another type of argumentation component according to the minimal argumentative complex: argument ? inference ?thesis ^[18].

In the example, the thesis is presented first, then the arguments, and then the thesis is repeated in the form of a conclusion. We can say that the example has explicit elements in the form of a declarative thesis, arguments and inference. Consequently, the structure of argumentation implements the Western model of reasoning. Note also that this text does not belong to political discourse.

Now let's turn to the example of argumentation (Example 3) on environmental issues in political discourse. Situational context: Chinese political leader Xi Jinping took part in the Leaders' climate summit via video link in Beijing and delivered a speech "Building a community of life together for people and nature".

Translation.

Let's reconstruct the fragment.

The example contains a clear logical structure in the form of deductive reasoning: Since climate change poses a serious challenge to the survival and development of humanity, the international community should 1) show unprecedented ambition 2) and take measures to discuss solutions to the problems associated with climate change, search for ways of harmonious coexistence with nature, 3) take responsibility and work together to build a community of people and nature.

Next, we see a detailed subordinate argumentation of six theses (marked with adverbs: first, second, etc.).

In the second thesis, we see a chain of reasoning regarding "green development", with the conclusion that environmental protection will lead to sustainable economic and social development. Note the term-metaphor, common in Western environmental terminology in the form of phrases with the lexeme "green".

The third thesis presents a judgment on the need to maintain the ecological balance of ecosystems.

The fifth thesis consists in a reasoned position on the synergy between environmental protection and social justice.

The argumentation regarding the thesis on environmental management is noteworthy:

The third example presents an even clearer argumentation structure than in the second example. At the same time, the structure of the argumentation corresponds to the Western model of reasoning both at the macro level and at the level of subordinate theses that serve as the basis for the declarative thesis Climate change is a serious challenge to the survival and development of mankind.

Discussion. Of course, the modern world requires more universal and developed ways of argumentation, not limited to classical texts. On the other hand, there is a tendency to level out Eastern ethno-cultural argumentation strategies. E. V. Lee convincingly shows this by comparing the Russian and Korean languages, saying that the historically developed Western model of argumentation follows a linear construction of the statement according to the scheme: thesis – argument – conclusion. The Eastern argumentative model assumes a circular development of discourse with a high content of metaphorical images. However, in the conditions of modern political discourse, the eastern model approaches the Western one, and argumentative utterance in political discourse acquires universal features ^{[19, p. 124]}. Such substitution of ethno-cultural strategies by universal ones cannot be considered positive in any way. This is also stated by researchers who point out the need to clarify such fundamental concepts as rationality and logic both along the line of the "exchange zone" of logical ideas, and along the line of functions performed by the Western European tradition of rationality and Eastern logical thought ^[20]. Consequently, Eastern logic is an object that requires comprehension in linguoculturology.

Conclusion. Summing up the reasoning, it is necessary to emphasize a number of theses in particular. Firstly, one of the main problems in using the ancient Oriental model is its specificity. At its core, the philosophy of the East can be difficult for a Western audience to understand and apply. This may create obstacles to the argumentation of environmental problems among those who are not familiar with the culture of the East. Secondly, ecology is such a universal idea that for all languages the argumentation is based on the generally accepted Western model. Thus, despite the differences in cultural traditions, the general concepts and principles of ecology can be understood and used by everyone who is engaged in environmental activities.

However, we must not forget that the cultural, philosophical and religious traditions of each country can influence the understanding and implementation of environmental policy. Therefore, it is important to take into account the cultural context when considering environmental issues and finding solutions at the international level.

^[1] Zhou S. A Study of Argumentation Structure in English and Classical Chinese Texts. Master’s thesis. Miami University. 2009. URL: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami1250787901

^[2] Hereafter translated by Fang Zhiyong