Рацио и эмоцио в повседневной коммуникации
The chapter discusses the specifics of argumentation in everyday communication. The author presents the specifics of the discourse of everyday communication and argumentation as a method of persuasion. The second part of the chapter is devoted to the analysis of the functioning of emotional arguments based on statements of emotional influence (praise, compliment, censure, insult, curse, etc.). These influences act as a tool for regulating the joint activities of people and can change the way of thinking, behavior and actions of interlocutors. Emotional argumentation in the implementation of such statements may be the only, "protruded" element of the statement, the most important for the momentary situation.
There are shown situations when such ordinary things as a shop, a workshop, an insurance company, a long distance train, a clinic, a hospital, a stage scenery, some sport activity or military service, unfavorable ecologic or informational situations further the dependant condition of a person, in the article. Besides such person experiences not only psychological of physical discomfort, but such emotions, that ruin its nature, change the behavior, touch the soul, restrain the psyche, perturb the heart, the whole body. There are made several propositions of freedom infringement counteraction concerning every kind of exploitation, including the criminal law resistance to it.
In this chapter we review and analyze the existing concepts of political manipulation of the emotional atmosphere of the society, concentrating our attention on the mechanisms used to transfer personal emotions into political actions. In particular, we are interested in emotions that can be the source of forming a so-called ‘politicized identity’ and explain the differences and the similarities of political manipulations in totalitarian regimes and democracy.
The article is devoted to the study of the theological article as a representative of theoretical theological discourse. In the article, the determinants of this kind of discourse are singled out, determinants viewed as its key features enhancing the argumentative effect.
The article argues that political texts should be view as both reflecting current social and political reality and cunstructing it at the same time through what can be called biased interpretations. The article analyses a number of language choices in political texts that can lead to construction of biased interpretations and add to creation of so called political myths.