Institute of Philology of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
Monuments of Folklore Siberian Journal of Philology Critique and Semiotics
Yazyki i fol’klor korennykh narodov Sibiri Syuzhetologiya i Syuzhetografiya
Institute of Philology of
the Siberian Branch of
Russian Academy of Sciences
По-русски
DOI: 10.25205/2307-1737
Roskomnadzor certificate number Эл № ФС 77-84784 
Kritika i Semiotika (Critique and Semiotics)
По-русски
Archive
Submission requirements
Process for Submission and Publication
Editor′s office
Editorial Board and Editorial Council
Our ethical principles
Search:


Email: silantev@post.nsu.ru

Article

Name: The New Rhetoric of Ch. Perelman and the Method Ways of Rhetoric Argumentation in H. Poincaré Works

Authors: Yu. V. Shatin, I. V. Silantev

Institute of Philology SB RAS; Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University

Issue 2, 2019Pages 392-401
UDK: 80/81DOI: 10.25205/2307-1737-2019-2-392-401

Abstract: The article discusses the prerequisites for the creation of a neo-rhetorical theory of the Brussels school. The authors proceed from the premise that the doctrine created by Ch. Perelman was not a one-step act, but was the result of a change in the scientific and philosophical paradigm of the first half of the twentieth century. Despite the fact that persuasiveness as the main core of the theory of argumentation was not known to scientists, in their writings they actively promoted ideas related to the role of intuition in learning scientific truths, widely using analogy techniques and metaphors borrowed from natural languages. The main actor in the article is H. Poincaré, a famous physicist, one of the creators of the special theory of relativity, and a popularizer of science, who went down in history of its formation as an active fighter with logocentrism.

Keywords: neo-rhetoric, persuasiveness, logocentrism, intuitivism, analogy, metaphor

Bibliography:

Annenkova I. V. Mesto ritoriki v zarubezhnoj i otechestvennoj filologii. Filologiya: nauchnye issledovaniya, 2012, no. 2. (in Russ.)

Bengtson E., Rosengren M. Filosofsko-antropologicheskij podhod v ritorike. Sluchaj Kassirera. Filosofiya i kul'tura, 2019, no. 1, p. 27–41. (in Russ.)

Eemeren F. van, Grootendorst. Rechevye akty v argumentirovannykh strukturakh. St. Petersburg, 1994. (in Russ.)

Kant I. Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya. In: Kant I. Sochineniya. In 5 vols. Moscow, 1966, vol. 5. (in Russ.)

Laguta O. N. Metaforologiya: teoreticheskie aspekty. Novosibirsk, 2003, pt. 1–2. (in Russ.)

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. In: Yazyk i modelirovanie social'nogo vzaimodejstviya. Moscow, 1987.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metafory, kotorymi my zhivem. Moscow, 2004.

Mishankina N. A. Metafora v nauke: paradoks ili norma? Tomsk, 2010. (in Russ.)

Panov M. I., Tyapkin A. A., Shibanov A. S. Anri Puankare i nauka nachala XX veka. In: Poincaré A. O nauke. Moscow, 1983. (in Russ.)

Perelman Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. London, 1971.

Poincaré A. O nauke. Moscow, 1983. (in Russ.)

Silantev I. V. Syuzhet i smysl. Moscow, 2018. (in Russ.)

Stepanov Yu. S. Yazyk i metod. K sovremennoj filosofii yazyka. Moscow, 1998. (in Russ.)

Teoriya metafory. Moscow, 1990. (in Russ.)

Institute of Philology
Nikolaeva st., 8, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation
+7-383-330-15-18, ifl@philology.nsc.ru
© Institute of Philology