Argumentative geometry of the Chinese eight-part essay.

Fen YUNFEI Postgraduate student, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Baikal State University 11 Lenin Street, Irkutsk, 664003, Russia 1279746232@qq.com

Introduction. Oriental models of argumentation attract the attention of theorists and practitioners in the modern world, as researchers and teachers strive to better understand the intercultural differences in argumentation in post-globalization conditions in order to improve intercultural communication and promote effective dialogue. Educators and researchers in the field of education can turn to Eastern models of argumentation to develop new ways to teach critical thinking and argumentation skills in various educational and social contexts. Moreover, Eastern philosophical systems such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism manifest themselves in reasoning in a way and in aspects that are unusual for the modern Western European tradition of logical thinking and speech construction. The originality of the oriental style of reasoning, manifested in diverse features in political, intercultural, and educational practices, provides a rich basis for the study of argumentation ^[10].

The term "argumentation" (translated from Latin. "argumentation", "argumentum") means "proof or argument that will serve as confirmation of some other judgment (presumably being true)" ^[3]. Since evidence, arguments, and arguments are found in different scientific fields, argumentative discourse is reflected in conflictology, sociology, logic, cognition, philosophy, rhetoric, and many other sciences. By now, there is an opinion that reasoning and argumentation are closely related, since argumentation is an integral part of the functional and semantic type of reasoning speech. As part of the reasoning, the author usually adheres to some general algorithms for logical progression from premises to conclusion. Argumentation is a more specialized aspect of presenting arguments in support of a point of view or statement. Argumentation is associated with a more detailed development of reasoning in the form of presenting facts, quotations, statistics, expert opinions, and rules for combining them to demonstrate the validity of the entire reasoning. In this regard, it is no coincidence that there is an expression "the art of argumentation", but not "the art of reasoning" ^[16].

Among the numerous definitions of argumentation, we cite the opinion of E. N. Lisanyuk, who believes that: "Argumentation is an intellectual cognitive activity carried out by cognitive agents mainly on the basis of natural language in the form of verbal communicative interaction (dialogue) in order to verify the argumentative consistency of the positions of the parties. The object of argumentation as an intellectual cognitive activity is a cognitive agent in the aspect of his knowledge, beliefs, goals and intentions, put forward by him for discussion in a dispute in the form of criticism and defense as his position in it" ^{[5, p. 4]}.

Argumentation models differ from country to country for a number of reasons. Culture, which underlies social norms and values, influences the formation of ways of reasoning. Summarizing the works of comparative scholars [Buzalskaya 2015; Garrett 2001; Defoort 2005; Gentz 2015; Plaks 2015; Reu 2015; Wagner 2015], we point out the following groups of differences between argumentation styles that are implemented in the cultures of the East and West.

1. In Western cultures, as a rule, direct argumentation is appreciated. It is characterized by deductive reasoning and reasoning by induction with a transition from arguments to a thesis. An illustration is the argumentative proposition "argument? inference? thesis". At the same time, in some Eastern cultures, indirect argumentation is preferred ^[18].

2. In Western cultures, especially in European and American, argumentation is usually based on a logical and rational approach. The emphasis here is on expressing one's point of view, presenting facts and arguments in support of this point of view, as well as using formal logical and rational arguments. In Western cultures, directness, the strength of arguments and the ability to defend one's position are usually appreciated ^[13].

3. In Eastern cultures such as Chinese, Japanese and Indian, the approach to argumentation may be more philosophical and contextual. Here, respect for status and authority, maintaining social harmony and establishing appropriate relationships between people are important factors.

However, it is worth noting that these differences are common observations and do not apply to all representatives of these cultures. The individuality of each person and the education they receive are also crucial.

According to E. P. Borzova ^[2], A. A. Krushinsky ^[4] and T. A. Madalimov ^[7], there are significant differences between Eastern and Western systems of logic, and the source of differences in argumentation style are the differences between Eastern and Western systems of logic.

The geometry of argumentation. Let's reveal the meaning of the scientific metaphor "geometry of argumentation". In S. Toulmin's fundamental work, it is customary to distinguish three facets of argumentation: dialectical, anthropological, and geometric [Toulmin, 2003]. The geometry of argumentation is that part of the theoretical construct that makes up the logical-categorical schemes of reasoning. A number of logical laws are used in the argumentation, such as the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded third, the law of sufficient reason, and others. In accordance with this, argumentation schemes are distinguished, which represent a logical structure in the form of a connection of elements that implement reasoning ^[6].

In different approaches, we can find variants of argumentation schemes. For example, a syllogism is a scheme of reasoning. In the argumentation, this is developed in the form of some models. The most well-known and applicable to the analysis of reasoning in the Western tradition is S. Toulmin's argumentation model [Toulmin, 2023]. It highlights the following elements.

Data is facts, evidence, or convincing arguments that support your position. The data serve as the basis for the argument and should be sufficiently convincing.

A Claim is a basic statement or thesis that you are trying to support with data. The statement must be clear, specific and supported by evidence.

Warrant – The justification links the data to the statement and explains why the data supports the statement. This is a logical explanation of how data leads to a conclusion.

A rebuttal is a supposed refutation of a construction.

Qualifier – this element expresses the degree of confidence or doubt about the relationship between the thesis and the data.

This model is descriptive and prescriptive in nature. That is, according to this model, you can not only analyze texts, but it is also recommended to compose texts and essays.

An essay as an explication of argumentation schemes.

Based on the structure of classical Chinese literature, it can be understood that Chinese teaching methods and scientific methodology also play an important role in the formation of an argumentative model. This method is based on the text about the "Essay on Eight Legs" (). The structure of classical Chinese argumentative texts is called the "Eight-Legged Essay". The "eight-legged essay" was widely used in the same way as in state exams, as a result of which ideas were squeezed into this prescribed and mandatory literary structure and became ossified and dead ^[15].

The "Essay on Eight Legs" was introduced into national exams during the Ming and Qing dynasties as a way of selecting officials, created in ancient times in order to shackle the minds of readers. The "Eight-Legged Essay" is a standardized literary structure, also known as the "eight-legged style". The structure usually consists of the following eight elements.

1. Opening – we reveal the topic(): two prosaic sentences that reveal the topic.

2. Reinforcement – getting a topic (): a prose of five sentences (or three to four) that develops and illuminates the topic and demonstrates the examinee's knowledge of the topic and its sources, without revealing the content of subsequent chapters.

3. Preliminary presentation – the beginning of the discussion(): This is also the moment when the article officially begins. This helps to determine the topic and form of the essay.

4. The initial argument is the initial stage (): a certain number (4, 5, 8 or 9) of the compared sentences "harmoniously contrast", developing the original argument.

5. The central argument is the middle leg(): free-form sentences define the center of the essay. There are usually no restrictions on the number of words, and sentences do not have to be written side by side.

6. The last argument is a late stage(): sentences are written in parallel, without limiting their number. Here we consider points not touched upon in the previous section; otherwise, the writer can continue to present the points of the central argument. It should be based on realism and written in a serious tone. This is the most important part of the essay ^[8].

7. The last argument is the final stage(): groups of parallel sentences, each of which consists of two to three or four to five lines. Here the subject is revisited and the ending is formulated ^[8].

8. Conclusion – the big knot(): prose with conclusion. The examinee submits a thorough and convincing summary of the essay ^[8].

This is evidenced by the book of Confucius "Lunyu" ^[9].

Wang Ao (Master of the eight-part essay form) participates in the exam, the question asked in the exam paper sounds like this: When the people are rich, how can a monarch not be rich? ().

This quote is taken from "Lunyu", the chapter of "Yan Yuan()", the original text is as follows ^[17]:

“”“”“”“”

Let's briefly explain the meaning: Duke Lu Ai asked Yu Ruo what to do when there was a famine and there was not enough money in the country. Yu Ruo replied: "Why don't we use the law of What? (The Che Law is the Zhou Dynasty's tax system, which simply means that a peasant plows nine parts of his private land for himself and one part of his public land for the state)."

Duke Lu Ai was perplexed: "I take two out of ten, and that's not enough; do you really want one out of ten?" Yu Ruo replied: "If the people are rich, how can the emperor not be rich? If the people are not rich, how can the emperor be rich?"

Thus, we can judge that the purpose of the examiner who came up with this question is to give candidates the opportunity to discuss the relationship between the wealth of the people and the wealth of the ruler (the wealth of the country). Of course, if candidates are completely unaware of the sources, they are likely to write gibberish.

As for the background, Wang Ao took the exam in 1475, when the Ming Dynasty was weakened and expenses such as pensions for the wounded further devastated the state treasury. The rulers also had a headache about where to get money and food, and so they came up with this question.

Let's analyze Wang Ao's essay from the point of view of the structure of the "eight-part essay".

1. Opening – we reveal the topic().

When the people below are rich, the ruler above will naturally be rich.

The author does not choose who should be rich, but says that everyone should be rich, but wealth should come from the bottom up. Ordinary people are at the bottom, and as long as they are rich, the ruler at the top (the state) will naturally be rich too.

2. Gain – getting a theme ().

This is because the wealth of the ruler is what is kept by the people. If the people are already rich, how can one argue that only the ruler is poor? So Yu Ruo told Duke Lu Ai about the concept of "unity of the ruler and the people."

This paragraph explains the subject and shows that I, Wang Ao, am well versed in books and know the sources.

3. Preliminary presentation – the beginning of the discussion().

It was implied that the Duke's proposal to increase taxation was due to the insufficiency of his income for public spending; in that case, what could take precedence over measures to ensure the sufficiency of public spending for his people? If the Che law can be implemented, always have love and care for the people, use the "one in ten" method of taxation, do not increase the burden on the people for their own sake, then the return from the people will be greater, and there will no longer be a shortage of supplies in the country. Then the efforts of the people would not be burdened with excessive taxes, the accumulation of people's property would not be exhausted by excessive demands^[8].

4. The initial argument is the initial stage().

In ordinary families, there would be enough savings and savings not to worry about taking care of parents and raising children. On ordinary farms, there would be an abundance of grain and millet, which would eliminate the worries of caring for the living and honoring the dead.

5. The central argument is the middle leg().

If the people live in prosperity, then why should the rulers remain in poverty?

6. The last argument is a late stage().

Therefore, I know that folk products, whether at home or in the fields, can easily belong to the monarch, and there is no need to collect them all into the treasury and make them your own. With an inexhaustible supply, do we need to worry that we won't be able to meet our needs? If we can't use it up, is it worth worrying that it won't be enough for an emergency?

7. The last argument is the final stage ().

Cattle for religious sacrifices and grain for rituals were plentiful, as were jade and silk for offerings and diplomatic gifts. Even if there was a shortage, people naturally provided it in full. What was missing?

Mountain and sea delicacies, wine and meat were enough to entertain state guests; chariots, horses, tools and weapons were enough to prepare for war and defense. Even if there are not enough of them, the people will satisfy their needs. What else is missing?

8. Conclusion – a large node ().

Oh! The original purpose of the Che Law is to benefit people, and that's exactly what government spending is enough for. Why then increase taxes to make the country rich?

Based on the above, it can be concluded that this structure of writing is also imprinted in modern Chinese logical thought, which can be summarized briefly for simplification: "initial premises, grounds, example, supplement, conclusion" ^[1]. Here, the "supplement" usually contains the "initial stage", "middle leg", "late stage" and "final stage" in an eight-part essay.

As for the current stage of argumentation development, it is impossible not to notice two aspects, one of which is related to the fact that the rather ancient structure of the eight-part composition is relevant and used in modern communication. This writing structure is relevant in an institutional context, which is a positive aspect. This structure is convenient for conducting exams for a large group of candidates, since candidates are less likely to deviate from the requirements ^[14]. This format also helps to ensure standards and fairness in the civil service examination system. Examiners can reduce the amount of time spent on marking by getting used to the format and uncertainty in the scheme ^[11].

The second aspect of the negative property is related to the fact that the adoption of this form of writing already in the XVII century caused the decline of classical poetry and prose during the reign of the Ming Dynasty. Critic Wu Qiao wrote: "people exhausted themselves over an eight-legged essay, and poems were composed only at the expense of their free energy." The modern political theorist and philosopher Huang Zongxi supported this opinion^[12]. A number of modern Chinese critics argue that writing on eight legs led to a gradual narrowing of people's creative thinking, which, in turn, led to a gradual narrowing of people's ideology and thus had a restraining effect on the Chinese people and the nation as a whole.

Conclusion. Several conclusions can be drawn from this. First, one of the main reasons for analyzing Eastern models of argumentation is their difference from Western ones. Eastern philosophies are inherently difficult for Western audiences to understand and apply. This can create obstacles in argumentation for people unfamiliar with Eastern cultures. Secondly, the classical Chinese argumentation structure, which can be observed in the "eight-legged essay", is widely used. On the one hand, the corresponding argumentation model has the advantages of a unifying character in educational and professional discourse. However, this structure also limits imagination and creativity to a certain extent, which hinders literary development.

Thirdly, there are significant differences between the logical systems of the East and the West, which manifest themselves in different styles of argumentation. The analysis of the "eight-part essay" allows us to obtain new results about the nature and textual organization of this structure, as well as about the place of the "eight-part essay" in the Chinese way of argumentation.

In the light of the above, we see the prospect of research in order to explore more deeply the schemes and models of argumentation implemented in different areas of the Chinese linguistic society. Do not forget that the cultural, historical and religious traditions of each country influence the style of argumentation, and in the modern era of rapid development, the oriental style of argumentation may not be preserved from significant changes in the future. Therefore, when considering the problem of argumentation at the international level and looking for its roots, it is important to be aware of current events, as well as take into account the cultural context.