Compositional and linguistic features of argumentative statements in scientific discourse

This article examines the compositional and linguistic features of argumentative statements as a key component of scientific discourse. The aim of the study is to systematize the compositional and linguistic features of argumentative statements in scientific discourse and to identify the mechanisms for constructing effective argumentation in the scientific field. The object of the study is scientific discourse as a set of texts supporting the professional communication of scientists, within which argumentative statements are realized. The subject of the study is the compositional structure, reflecting the optimal communicative framework for interaction in the scientific environment, represented by a sequence of communicative tactics, and the linguistic means selectively used to formulate a persuasive statement. The study also examines the mechanisms of interaction between structure and linguistic means, which is a necessary condition for increasing the effectiveness of scientific communication. The methodological basis of the study is discourse analysis aimed at identifying argumentation strategies in scientific texts; a communicative-functional approach focused on identifying the communicative framework of the statement; and argumentation theory which proposes an initial nomenclature of arguments. Methods of compositional analysis, linguistic description, and identification of conceptual argumentation schemes are also used. Based on research articles, the following types of arguments were identified as recurring: appeal to authority, arguments from reality, arguments from effectiveness and consequences, inductive arguments, normative arguments, and arguments from balance. Stable correlations were also identified: argument from authority is combined with argument from effectiveness, argument from consequences, and normative argument; argument from reality is combined with inductive argument, argument from consequences, and argument from balance. Among the linguistic means supporting argumentation, authorizing constructions, means of textual cohesion, evaluative vocabulary, the modal meanings of necessity and the author's confidence in the veracity of the message, and terminological richness were identified. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its comprehensive approach to the study of argumentation, focusing on compositional blocks reflecting the communicative framework of the text and linguistic means aimed at convincing the addressee of the veracity of the message. The results may be useful to young scientists and should contribute to improving the quality of their scientific communication practices. For teachers, the results may be of interest in terms of methods for creating both written scientific texts and public presentations at conferences and symposia.