| Popis: |
Focus of this paper is developing classification of auditory arguments and examine its connection to argument models. Groarke (2018, p.1) defines auditory argument “as an attempt to provide rational evidence for a conclusion using non-verbal sounds instead of or (more frequently) in addition to words.” However, sounds with an argumentative value may be quite different and vary in their sonic “content”. The aim of this paper is to classify auditory arguments in consideration to their distinctions and specific characteristics. First category depends on sound producers and makes distinction between human and non-human sound. These two main categories can be further divided into subcategories. Human sound is either related to the verbal massage (i.e. prosodic features like tempo, voice quality, rhythm, intensity, pitch…) or is independent sound without verbal content (laughing, crying, sobbing, heavy breathing). Non-human sounds can also be divided into two subcategories: natural non-human sound (i.e. animal sounds) or artificial sounds created with a specific purpose (sirens, alarms etc.). This paper argues that differences in sound content may result with different role in an argumentative discourse and different function revealed in argument reconstruction. To test this hypothesis, auditory arguments are reconstructed using several argument models: the Toulmin model of argument (Toulmin, 1958), Argumentum model of topics (Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009 ; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009) and the ART approach using KC model (Groarke, 2017). The aim is to determine differences between different sounds and their argumentative value and to examine function that sound can have in an argument model. Analysis show that auditory components of an argument could be integrated in argument models but with the differences between different sounds. Prosodic features in argument reconstruction rely on recognizing stereotypical perceptions connected to a specific feature i.e. RP English accent connected with higher social status, nasal voices with lower level of education, lower social status etc. Therefore, prosodic features are usually the part of “common ground knowledge” and they serve as a warrant or backing while non-human sounds may also function as data or ground in an argument reconstruction. |
