EXPLAINING IN CONVERSATION - TOWARDS AN ARGUMENT MODEL
EXPLAINING IN CONVERSATION - TOWARDS AN ARGUMENT MODEL
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ejsp.2420220206
复制
发表时间：
1992-03-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
LEUDAR, I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ANTAKI, C;LEUDAR, I
我们研究这样一个命题：在普通谈话中，人们关心的是争论——证明他们的主张合理，并反驳潜在的和实际的反主张。 我们通过分析一次特定对话中的解释来测试这个命题。 我们关注演讲者所说内容的有效性以及他们说话的权威性。 从这个角度来看，我们发现大多数看似因果归因的东西最终看起来像是争论性的主张支持。 然后，我们继续充实准实用规则，这些规则可能有助于正式决定任何给定的话语是否可以更好地理解为论证或因果解释。 这些规则围绕着说话者的明显意图以及她或他所说的条款之间的预计关系。 所有这些都使我们从归因理论的解释模型（作为原因的报告）中走出来，我们最终得到了普通解释的论证模型。
We examine the proposition that, in ordinary conversation, people are concerned to argue - to justify their claims and to counter potential and actual counter claims. We test out the proposition by analysing explanations in one particular conversation. We attend to the validity claims of what the speakers say, and to the authority with which they say it. Viewed in that light, we find that the majority of what might look like causal attributions turn out to look like argumentative claim-backings. We then go on to flesh out the quasi-pragmatic rules which might help to decide formally whether any given utterance is better understood as an argument or a causal explanation. These rules revolve around the speaker's apparent intention and the projected relationship between the clauses in what she or he says. All of this takes us a fair way from attribution theory's model of explanation as the reporting of a cause, and we end up with an argumentative model of ordinary explanation.