Lập luận trên diễn đàn quốc hội qua những phiên chất vấn TT TIENG ANH

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION NGUYEN DIEU THUONG ARGUMENT ON THE FORUM OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IN INTERPELLATION SESSIONS Major: Vietnamese linguistics Code: 9220102 DISSERTATION SUMMARY THAI NGUYEN – 2022 The dissertation has been completed at UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY Supervisors: Prof Dr Nguyen Duc Dan Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Van Loc Reviewer 1: Reviewer 2: Reviewer 3: This dissertation will be defended in the university committee: UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION – THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY at……………on……………………… 2022 The dissertation can be read at: - Learning Resource Center – Thai Nguyen University - Library of University of Education - National Library of Vietnam LIST OF PUBLISHED WORKS OF THE AUTHOR RELATING TO THE THESIS Nguyen Dieu Thuong (2018), “Introduce research trends on argumentation (Part 1)”, Journal of Lexicography & Encyclopedia (Vietnam Institute of Lexicography & Encyclopedia), Vol 06, No.56, pp.24-29 Nguyen Dieu Thuong (2020), “Attempting to understand some arguments at the Vietnamese Parliament from the approach of integrating logic and pragmatics”, TNU Journal of Science and Technology, Vol.225, No.07, pp.154-161 Nguyen Dieu Thuong (2020), “Argumentation’s characteristics in the discourses of Vietnam national assembly deputies considered from sentence unit (Part 1)”, Journal of Lexicography & Encyclopedia (Vietnam Institute of Lexicography & Encyclopedia), Vol 04, No.66, pp.24-29 Nguyen Dieu Thuong (2020), “Some modality means in arguments of delegates of Vietnam national assembly”, Journal of language and life (Linguistic Society of Vietnam), Vol.11B, No.305, pp.44-51 INTRODUCTION Rationale for the study 1.1 International researches on argument Studying informal logic and argument in everyday life has been a strong development trend in the world since the second half of the twentieth century with exchange forums such as research conferences on argument (ISSA ECA), Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Informal Logic Journal and Journal of Argumentation, etc 1.2 Vietnamese researches on argument Currently, the researches on argument in Vietnam mainly stop at the task of analyzing internal language structure without considering argument in conversation movement and interaction Argument on the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam is an important issue However, there has not been any specific research on the theoretical nature of the argument This research focuses on the guiding point of view of former Chairperson of the National Assembly Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan at the 3rd session (the XIV National Assembly): “Transitioning from the discursive National Assembly to the argumentative National Assembly" [111] Research purposes and tasks 2.1 Research purposes By applying some theoretical issues of argument in the world, the thesis identifies, analyzes, and evaluates argument (about the internal structure of language in the context of an argument) and comments on some issues of using argument in questioning, interpellating, answering, and moderating on the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam (with special attention towards effective argument in the context of interpellation) 2.2 Research tasks - Collect and summarize relevant documents - Make statistics and classification of components in the argument structure (in interpellation sessions): common types of argument models; weak arguments/ fallacies - unconvincing arguments; acts of questioning and answering; methods of questioning, answering and moderating in the argumentative conversations; interactive and conversational models of National Assembly delegates - Analyze, evaluate, and interpret argument based on description and diagram of argument (structure, element, relationship between elements), and schematize argumentative conversations placed in an interactive relationship (conversation, question/ interpellation and answer act) - Comment on how to use the argument from the results of the situation analysis Research objects and scope 3.1 Research objects The research object of the thesis is the argument in interpellation sessions on the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam (considering the following roles: 1, the product of the speaking process from the premise to a conclusion (argument in the internal structure of each turn of speech- chapter 2); 2, complex linguistic acts in argumentative conversation- chapter 3) 3.2 Research scope This thesis only studies arguments in direct interpellation sessions (including combined interpellation sessions when discussing the report summarizing socio-economic development) from the XIXIV National Assembly Specifically, the thesis uses 206 arguments (83 major arguments) at two consecutive interpellations at the XIII National Assembly as a sample case The conclusions drawn are also verified and generalized by other meetings and sessions from the XIXIV National Assembly which are selected in a variety of sessions The material is taken from the official website of the National Assembly of Vietnam (http://quochoi.vn) Research approaches and methods 4.1 Research approaches The object of the dissertation is argument Therefore, the process of analyzing and evaluating argument is always placed in the integration of logic, pragmatics, and a part of rhetoric The thesis mainly applies the methods and results of the logic’s research on argument (from the point of view of S Toulmin and D Walton) combined with the radical and descriptive argument (by O Ducrot), and part of the dialectical pragmatic view (by D Walton and F.van Eemeren) when considering argument in the movement of critical dialogue 4.2 Research methods and techniques 4.2.1 Research methods To accomplish the above research purposes and tasks, the thesis applies qualitative research based on the case study 4.2.1.1 Descriptive method This method plays an important role in the thesis It is used universally to describe arguments in the internal structure of discourse, types of unconvincing arguments, interaction in argumentative conversations 4.2.1.2 Discourse analysis method Discourse analysis method is used throughout the thesis to analyze and classify some aspects of the argument 4.2.2 Research techniques 4.2.2.1 The technique of compare and contrast The technique of compare and contrast is used in comparing and contrasting cases to make an assessment, to generalize about trends using aspects of the argument, to identify the persuasiveness of good arguments and unconvincing arguments 4.2.2.2 The technique of statistics and classification The technique of statistics and classification is used in surveying the number of linguistic elements in an argument, reasoning, unconvincing arguments, question and answer methods The argument model is put in a relationship with the argument results Contribution of the thesis 5.1 Theoretical contribution The thesis affirms the research values of argument in the world, elucidates these theories through a specific study in Vietnam: the theory of fallacy, the theory of critical dialogue, the theory of reasoning in argument, argument model theory by S Toulmin, theory of argument description and polyphony in discourse analysis by O Ducrot 5.2 Practical contribution The thesis raises the issue of considering argument as a complex linguistic act in critical dialogue in Vietnam The thesis provides a method of analyzing and evaluating argument, criticizing and building argument in the context of interpellation at the forum of the National Assembly The research results of the thesis can be applied directly in the National Assembly In addition, the diagrams of the types of reasoning, unconvincing arguments, and critics in the thesis can be applied in all areas of life The thesis can be a reference for research and teaching in pragmatics, logic, discourse analysis, and critical thinking Structure of the thesis In addition to Introduction and Conclusion, the content of the thesis is built into chapters Chapter OVERVIEW OF RESEARCHES, THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL BASIS 1.1 Overview of researches 1.1.1 International researches on arguments Argument is an indispensable element in the “art of speech” and has been mentioned since Antiquity In 1947, the argument was mentioned a lot in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” It was not until the twentieth century that many new research perspectives on argument theory were born in order to increase the effectiveness of argument activities in practice In general, these studies were summarized by F.van Eemeren [president of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), editor-in-chief of Argumentation Journal], Rob Grootendorst [50, p.43-57 ] and some other authors [49], [56], [66], [91]… Accordingly, the research on argument can be generalized according to the following research directions: from the point of view of S Toulmin and C Perelman, from the point of view of informal logic, from the point of view of fallacy, from the point of view of formal dialectic, from the point of view of pragmatic dialectic, from the point of view of the radical argument, from the point of view of modern rhetoric and other meaningful approaches… Each of these approaches has achievements and limitations They can suggest and complement each other Dialectical research related to the political field was initiated by F.van Eemeren (2002, 2009) [56, p.583-585] After that, research on arguments in the field of politics has also attracted great attention, such as the fallacy of the US president (Obama) [42], Donald Trump [125] diagramming the model of argument in debates at the Parliament [71], [79]… 1.1.2 Vietnamese researches on arguments In Vietnam, there are studies on argument from the perspective of pragmatics and logic by Do Huu Chau (1996) [1] and Nguyen Duc Dan (1996, 1998) [3], [4] These works have presented basic issues in argument theory such as the concept of argument, argument relationship, argument structure, common sense in argument… However, these works mainly introduced argument theory according to O Ducrot’s point of view on the data of Vietnamese Argument is first considered from the point of view of description and analysis of discourse This research direction is later concretized by detailed descriptions in the system of Vietnamese language: Nguyen Minh Loc (1994) [25], Kieu Tap [32, p.129], Nguyen Thi Thu Trang [38] From the perspective of discourse analysis, some authors were interested in arguments in specific fields: Nguyen Thi Huong (2010) [21]; Chu Thi Quynh Phuong (2016) [30]; Nguyen Thi Tham (2019) [33]… Nguyen Duc Dan has updated the theory of informal logic with the article “Introduction to informal logic” (2013) [7] After that, several authors have continued to develop this approach, such as Nguyen Duy Trung (2014) [39]; Tran Trong Nghia (2015) [28] One of the quite interesting issues which have achieved many research results in the world when it comes to logic is a fallacy In Vietnam, there have not been many in-depth and applicable researches on this issue ([27], [14]) In addition, when studying argument in everyday language, we can only fully understand it thanks to the context of argument… (according to D Walton [83], F.van Eemeren [54], [55]) Up to the present time, there has not been a full study on the argument and debate at the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam There are only a few general documents about the National Assembly of Vietnam and instructions on skills of information gathering and processing [16], [39], [126] or a few summarizing and generalizing opinions of experience on practical issues of operation of the National Assembly [111], [112], [114] Since then, it is necessary to build argument skills that must be based on the basis of the theoretical nature of argument and the actual situation of using argument 1.2 Theoretical and practical basis 1.2.1 Theoretical basis 1.2.1.1 The concept of argument Argument is the process or product of the process from premise (argument and reasoning) to conclusion An argument is supported by other arguments or can be attacked by other arguments by posing critical questions 1.2.1.2 The structure of argument In this dissertation, the structure of the arguments is considered according to the traditional reduction model (from premise to conclusion) and the descriptive expansion from the point of view of O Ducrot (the theoretical basis for the implementation of Chapter 2), S Toulmin’s point of view (the theoretical basis for the implementation of chapter 3) a The structure of argument according to the traditional argument model and descriptivism The simplest structure of argument consists of two main elements, namely premise, and conclusion, in which argument and reasoning are the premise to create a conclusion b The structure of argument according to S Toulmin’s model In chapter of this dissertation, the structure of the arguments (according to S Toulmin’s model) is studied with six elements: data, warrant, claim, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing of the warrant The elements of data, warrant and claim according to this model respectively correspond to the elements of argument, reasoning, and conclusion in the traditional argument model c Reasoning – the warrant in the argument structure according to S Toulmin’s model In the structure of argument, the reasoning is the element that represents the inference relationship Reasoning in ordinary argument includes two types: Formal logic reasoning and ordinary reasoning (ordinary language) (i) Formal logic reasoning Formal logical reasoning is understood as the formal inference method This type of reasoning is divided into three categories: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and analogy reasoning (ii) Ordinary reasoning Ordinary reasoning can be based on the rules of formal logic or not based on the rules of formal logic For the purpose of evaluating argument (especially with the role of language acts in argumentative conversations), the thesis accepts a classification of ordinary reasoning based on basic criteria that directly generate the final conclusion (destination of the reasoning under consideration) Accordingly, reasoning includes four main types: reasoning by value, reasoning by cause and effect, reasoning by scale comparison, and reasoning by interpellation method - Reasoning by value This type of reasoning is based on the value of the following factors: actual existence (reasoning of actual existence), legal basis based on law, data (data reasoning/ number reasoning], authority (authority reasoning) The data, legal documents, authority are already reasoning They are themselves oriented to the conclusion without the support of formal logic - Reasoning by cause and effect This type of reasoning “consists of reasoning for evidence concerning the law of cause and effect Individual factors are also evidence for the law of cause and effect, such as family, composition, ethnicity, country, gender, age, education level, physical condition, property…” (in agreement with the point of view in the work [14, p.81]) The type of reasoning whose basis directly generates a conclusion is from a cause-and-effect logic relationship (inductive logic, deductive logic, analogy or ordinary logic) In addition, reasoning by cause and effect is shown in the relationship: + By actions, words, qualities (Platin) + Special reasoning - Reasoning by scale comparison (reasoning on scale) “Argument using reasoning by scale comparison is the argument whose reasoning is related to the scale of things and attributes” (in agreement with the point of view in the work [14, p.84]) - Reasoning by interpellation method This is the type of reasoning where the speaker puts a contradiction in the given data to assert (/implicitly assert) a certain conclusion This kind of reasoning works as a basis in argument because it is based on the principle of forbidding contradictions in the inference mechanism 1.2.1.3 Classification of argument Argument is classified based on the following criteria of structure, clarity of conclusion, reasoning, premises in the argument, argument method, and field of application 1.2.1.4 Criteria of a good argument An argument in ordinary language must, first of all, ensure the intrinsic criteria of the language structure In addition, the rules of conversation as a linguistic act must be observed A good argument needs to ensure the following criteria: validity, soundness, clarity, sufficiency, relevance, reasonability, and cogency 1.2.1.5 Theory on argumentative conversation a The concept of “argumentative conversation” An argumentative conversation is a sequence of changing messages or linguistic act between two or more speakers A good and ideal argument is between the parties who follow the rules of the argument The outcome of the conversation is the outcome of the generalized argument Each turn of speech in the argumentative conversation will be linguistic acts that lead to the facts, justifications, supporting justifications, qualifiers, and rebuttal for the generalized argument b Types of argumentative conversation There are seven types of argumentative conversation: persuasion, investigation, discovery, negotiation, information seeking, consideration, and personal argument In these types of conversations, there are differences in terms of the initial situation in which the conversation arose, the purpose of the participants, and the purpose of the conversation c The movement of argumentative conversation - There are stages of an argumentative conversation: confronting, opening, arguing, and closing - Argument rules: liberal/democratic rule, proof rule, hit point rule, substantive rule, unexplained premise rule, starting point rule, argument schema rule, validity rule, closure rule, and usage rule In argumentative conversations, a transition from one type of conversation to another can take place 1.2.1.6 Fallacy a The concept of “fallacy” Fallacy is an argument that violates the standard of a good argument It makes mistakes in reasoning and conversational interaction b List of fallacy A fallacy can be generalized into groups with typical and common fallacies as follows: (i) Fallacy due to “unimportance” (violate importance, rationality, and persuasiveness), (ii) Fallacy due to wrong inference process (violate validity, completeness, reasonableness, and persuasion) (iii) Fallacy due to language (violate the criterion of clarity) Note: In fact, one argument can have multiple mistakes at the same time 1.2.1.7 The perspective of integrating research directions to evaluate an argument The argument needs to be considered in terms of both surface structure and depth structure The argument at the forum of the sentence, in terms of grammar, all represent the conjugation relationship and introduce complementary argument: apart from, moreover, furthermore, on the other hand, in addition… Some of these connectors have the function of strengthening the argument: moreover, furthermore… The group of contrary connectors (however, nevertheless, but…) plays a special role in the interpellation sessions by making objective and multi-dimensional conclusions The introductory connectors with more than positions are used very specifically with the system of linking words listed in the sequence of aspects: secondly, thirdly… This forms a sequence of arguments or conclusions and creates the coherence and clarity of arguments, which listeners will easily follow a Argument introductory connectors in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) According to the survey results through 206 minor arguments, argument introductory connectors have the function of introducing the contrary argument accounting for the most proportion (32.5%) Meanwhile, the number of argument introductory connectors with the function of introducing exclusionary arguments (exception) has the lowest frequency (0.7%) Although accounting for a small number, argument introductory connectors have an important role in reflecting the qualifier in the argument If there is no argument with introductory connectors of this type, that argument will be easily rebutted (eg 2.7) In addition, argument introductory connectors with the function of indicating the cause have a high frequency (24%) They play the role of marking causal arguments in interpellation discourse Respondents use them as tools for interpreting the act of accountability (eg 2.8) b Conclusion introductory connectors in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) Arguments may or may not have conclusion introductory connectors An argument with conclusion introductory connectors has a large proportion with 80.1% The use of conclusion introductory connectors plays an important role in creating a clear understanding of the relationship in the argument 2.2.1.2 Operator in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) a The modality operator has the effect of emphasizing the validity of an argument or enhancing the general strength of an underused argument (2.8% and 23% respectively) The modality operator tends to appear mainly in strong arguments and expresses clear views and opinions b Argument in interpellation and answer discourses mainly uses the type of operator whose function is to change (enhance or degrade) 10 the power of the argument’s speech act (interpretation-presentation act, controlling act, aspiration act, and commitment act, commanding act) The survey results show that modality operators of confirmation act are used with the highest frequency (69.9%) Modality operators of commitment, controlling, aspiration, and commanding act, account for 16.4%, 5.5%, 4.8%, and 3.4%, respectively In general, modality operators that have the strength of question/answer act are shown at a weak level (except for the aspiration act, will modality operator of commitment act and certainly of confirmation act) The operators in each group can be arranged on a certain scale There is a certain relationship between modality operators of aspiration act and controlling act They can transform into each other (towards the action objects with the level of responsibility specified by these modality operators) They can be ranked on the following scale: want < wish < could (+ verb) < suggest < request Modality operators which show high commitment and a strong level of controlling act (suggest, request) are rarely used Modality operators of commanding act that show the power to demand action at a higher level (need, must) have a low frequency Modality operators of commitment act are used with both low (try) and medium (will) levels of commitment orientation… 2.2.2 Argument (data) and reasoning (warrant) in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) 2.2.2.1 Argument in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) a Examine argument in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) Through the survey results, some characteristics of the argument can be summarized as follows: (i) Framework of argument: The argument in the discourse of question/answer on the forum of the National Assembly can be reduced to four main types: Argument of actual existence, argument on legal documents, personal/organizational reputation, the argument of actual action, and argument of data In essence, the argument of actual action can be classified as an argument of actual existence that actually exists However, they have their own role in the context of questioning to target impact, so they have a certain independence Normally, the contents of the above-mentioned argument are usually presented in types: According to / As /… (argument introductory connectors of information) + voters’ opinions / opinions of A (A has prestige and power) / newspaper, content of documents/actions, opinions of individuals/organizations…; (Actually) A was/is; (Actually) With A / (was/is) performing A, (then)….; According to… the data is… 11 (ii) Structure of argument: According to the survey results, the argument in the interpellation sessions on the forum of the National Assembly were mainly complex arguments in both question and answer So, for the most part, there is more than one argument (iii) Position of argument: - For the question: the argument is usually at the top - For answer: the argument is usually behind the conclusion (iiii) Materials of argument: The materials are figures (eg 2.18), events or activities, press information (eg 2.20), or the tasks to be performed in the national development strategic plan (eg 2.21)… The materials of argument can be combined with connectors to create a clearer orientation in the role of arguing (eg 2.25) 2.2.2.2 Arguments in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) a Investigate different types of arguments in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) The survey results of 83 major arguments and 206 minor arguments show that, in the same argument, more than one reasoning can be used and they form a chain of reasoning The number of reasoning corresponds to the complexity of the issue aspects raised by the argument The most common type of reasoning is causal reasoning (62.4%) Reasoning by authority accounts for 12.4% (of which reasoning by personal authority accounts for 8.7%) b Comment - Reasoning in the interpellation sessions is often combined into a chain of reasoning, creating the certainty of a convincing argument - Reasoning in interpellation sessions may or may not follow the rules of inference - Reasoning in the interpellation sessions can use many types However, the key one for the conclusion (interrogative question) is the reasoning according to the interpellation method - If using different reasoning and evaluation methods, different issues can lead to different or even contradictory conclusions - Reasoning used in the practice of natural languages is very diverse They depend on question-and-answer contexts A number of reasoning can be listed with corresponding types of reasoning diagrams: actual reasoning for existence, cause and effect, national characteristics, scale, majority, law, authority, and method of interpellation Such as: + Authority reasoning: Diagram of expert reasoning A is an expert in X field A says that: x c = x (q: if x  X and if x is the result A research (by a reliable or wellreviewed method) of X 12 Although reasoning used in interpellation sessions is varied in terms of contexts, it is all definable to particular argument diagrams These diagrams are not only analysis and evaluation tools but also a tool to create arguments on the basis of defined relationships (iv) Coherent language in argumentative discourse in interpellation sessions According to the survey, there are still some grammatical and semantic errors that hinder the process of receiving information for listeners in interpellation sessions These errors appear unevenly between sessions They tend to appear more in interpellation sessions without prior content preparation 2.2.3 Conclusions in turns of speeches on the forum of the National Assembly (in interpellation sessions) 2.2.3.1 The position of conclusions in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) The conclusion in the argument model in the respondents’ discourse has a flexible position (it can be at the beginning or the end) Usually, if the conclusion is at the end, the respondent often uses the topic component to repeat the questioner’s question at the beginning of the argument (in case there is a mix of other questions and answers) At that time, the answer usually starts with words that mark the occurrence of the subject component, such as regarding, for, in terms of For questions, the delegates often give an argument before presenting the conclusion (question) 2.2.3.2 The nature of the conclusion in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) a The nature of the conclusion in terms of formality The conclusion in the argument structure in interpellation sessions at the forum of the National Assembly has three forms as follows: question, suggestion, and affirmative sentence, with the following purposes: question, refute, seek solutions, ask for explanation, and commitment b The nature of the conclusion based on explicit/implicit characteristics The surveyed 83 major arguments mainly have explicit conclusions (68/83) That conclusion can be repeated to form the general theme of the arguments, creating coherence between the questions and answers Besides, there are also cases where the conclusion is presented in the form of a rhetorical question (eg 2.29) c The nature of the conclusion based on characteristics of speech act In terms of the target word, the conclusion in the argument discourse in the interpellation sessions can be: narrative-explaining 13 behavior (eg 2.32, 2.35), commanding behavior (eg 2.16), interpellating act (eg 2.1, 2.24), promising behavior (e.g 3.64), committing act (e.g 3.68) and rejecting act (e.g 2.55) 2.3 The model of argument in turns of speeches on the forum of the National Assembly (in interpellation sessions) 2.3.1 The model of argument is based on the positional correlation between the argument and the conclusion This model of argument can be classified based on the presence or absence of components in the argument structure There are models without arguments (implicit arguments), only conclusions (C) The argument model in the interpellation session is usually complete and explicit (table 2.8) 2.3.2 The model of argument is based on the level of complexity in the structure 2.3.2.1 The model of single argument in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) The model of a single argument is often used in the following cases: interrogative questions [straightforward questions (e.g 2.19, 2.21)], short explanatory answers mainly listing and reporting about the events (eg 3.25), and the moderator’s discourse 2.3.2.2 The model of complex argument in turns of speeches (in interpellation sessions) The model of complex argument can involve 2-3 times or more than times of the inference 2.3 Concluding remarks Argument (in interpellation sessions) has a hierarchical structure in terms of form The way argument is presented tends to follow the pattern D-C (conclusion after the premise/argument for interrogative discourses or C-D-(C) for moderating discourse or answer In the structure of the argument, the number of elements and the relationship between the elements is not fixed It is often a complex structure (2-3 times or more than times of the inference) Delegates use indicators with the role of creating linkage and semantic orientation for argument The number of connectors in the argument is not diverse In contrast, they are used with normative forms and influenced by the communication context at the forum of the National Assembly These connectors create some relationships, such as cause-effect, condition-effect, addition-progress, exclusion, list… Notably, contrary connectors play an important role in interpellation sessions They are valuable for creating multidimensional arguments, making the conclusion understood (especially for interrogative questions) Connectors in interpellation 14 discourse which has more than three positions (the means of joining represent the sequence of listing aspects: secondly, thirdly, fourthly ) form a sequence of arguments as well as clear and coherent conclusions The type of excluding connectors reflects the exceptions to the conclusions These connectors introduce an important component that is the basis for a reasonable argument They give certainty, conviction, and universality to the element of justification In addition, they also stipulate the presence or absence of the qualifier for the conclusion If all objections have been fully covered, the conclusion will not need to use qualifiers expressing the low soundness However, it was found that the rebuttal was rarely mentioned Therefore, there is often a qualifier in the conclusions This qualifier corresponds to the modality operators of speech act in words: confirmation, commanding, controlling, commitment, and aspiration These modality operators can be classified according to certain strength-weakness scales They affect argument acts In order to avoid extreme conclusions that violate logic or lack agency power, it is necessary to pay attention to the role and effect of each type of modality operator in certain contexts In addition to the modality operators, there are also the operators that have the effect of reversing the argument and enhancing the power of the argument These types of operators tend to be used more frequently in sharp interrogative discourses Reasoning in interpellation sessions is varied thanks to a combination of different types Each type of reasoning has a certain role which is associated with the tendency to be used in typical contexts Specifically, cause-effect reasoning is most often used Reasoning by interpellation method is a typical argument in the interpellation Based on the analysis results from specific cases, chapter presented some common reasoning diagrams Each diagram shows the content of the independent and dependent fields The independent field includes the inference relationship and qualifier for the conclusion The dependent field includes parameter elements (data d, statement c) These parameters will change according to different contexts The reasoning is the core element that creates the value of an argument When building an argument, we realize the dependent field in the argument diagram to get a specific argument Each argument diagram contains the prescriptive elements of the terms of use, which is the basis for evaluating the argument in practice An argument that guarantees this condition is a good argument and vice versa In addition to ensuring a common framework for these arguments, using the right language units and ensuring coherence are also requirements for an effective argument 15 Chapter ARGUMENT IN ARGUING DISCUSSIONS ON THE FORUM OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (IN INTERPELLATION SESSIONS) 3.1 Introduction Chapter will identify some characteristics of argument in the arguing discussions expressed through speech acts in questioning and answering questions, and moderating acts; method of questioning, answering, moderating, and the model reflecting the interaction, good argument, weak argument, and fallacy 3.2 Characteristics of argument through speech acts on the forum of the National Assembly (in interpellation sessions) 3.2.1 Characteristics of argument in questioning/interpellation act, answering questions act 3.2.1.1 Characteristics of argument through questioning/interpellation act a Classification of interpellation questions in questioning/interpellation act A convincing interpellation question can often be explicit in the form: A but B, so C (must “ask”) with reasoning by an interpellation method This form of argument presents a good critique The questioning/ interpellation act reflects the argumentative argument model appropriate to the context of the conversation in the interpellation context, which is exploratory and deliberative conversation The survey results through a number of interpellation sessions showed that in the question/interpellation turn, the delegates use the form of questions, narrative sentences, and imperative sentences (suggest, wish to the Minister ) Questions are mainly used In fact, questions have two types of structure: close-ended questions (yes-no question, either … or ), open-ended questions (who, why, how, etc.) The purpose of these types of questions is to confirm information, to find out information, and to criticize the problem of irrationality The purpose of the act of asking in the interpellation of the delegates is mainly to find information (23/27 times at a session of the 4th/XI National Assembly, 40/43 times at a session of the 5th/XI National Assembly) In some cases, the question is to find information because the questioner has no hypothesis for the answer There are also cases in which the question has the form of an open-ended question but the questioner already has a hypothesis for the answer so there is an implicit purpose of verifying, affirming, or disproving The manner and purpose of the interpellation questions will guide the types of dialogue used in the argument Open-ended questions that aren’t tied to implicit the questioner’s assumptions will be an informative conversation This is inconsistent with the purpose of the interpellation sessions on the forum of the National Assembly The 16 questions with the purpose of determining the choices and confirming the (existing) hypotheses have the role of creating an exploratory conversation and a good argument in the argument In addition to the “question” form, there is also the form of a suggestion The act of question/interpellation is towards different purposes, such as asking is just “to know”, expressing wishes, showing sharing and understanding (eg 3.10); expressing wants and needs (eg 3.11); proposing solutions (eg 3.12); prosecuting and asking for explanations (eg 3.13, 2.26, 3.1); interpellating and asking for a commitment to future action (eg 3.13), rebutting (eg 3.14) In the context of the interpellation sessions, the purposes of questioning will create different strengths of argument b Method of argument in questioning/interrogation In general, the question/interpellation method at the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam can be divided into four main and common forms The argument in interrogative acts has a complex structure of language acts In the models showing the question method, the model (praise/criticism) - presenting the phenomenon of contradictions and unreasonableness – interpellating can show the bravery of the delegate and the strength of social criticism best However, according to the survey results, the use of this model still accounts for a low rate The model (praise/empathy) states the general situation (voters say, I don't understand, it is said that it can be seen that, in fact ) - express the desire to confirm and find out information is the model that reflects a weak argument This model still exists and even in some sessions, it is used to a high degree 3.2.1.2 Characteristics of argument through answering act a Classification of answering act The survey results show that there is a relationship between the importance, clarity, and completeness of answers at the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam Regarding the content, the answers in the plenary session at the National Assembly of Vietnam usually present information: the current situation, the solution In addition to the answers showing the understanding of the issue with the high sense of responsibility of the delegates as the head of the industry and government, there are still “unimportant” answers For example, with the close-ended question form “yes/no”, it is necessary to answer “yes” or “no” directly However, the respondent uses circular arguments in his discourse or switches to the form of presenting the situation b The method of argument through answering questions The method of argument through the act of answering questions is shown through models The model containing the promise and commitment behavior (model 2) is used the least (only 17 about 2.8%) When making promises and commitments, there are cases where delegates use modal words or grammatical structures that not show certainty and reliability for the conclusion Therefore, delegates sometimes misunderstand (the wrong argument exceeds the presupposition) and the refutation in the example cases 3.28 and 3.29 In addition, promises and commitments that are only in “subjective will” or commitments to perform at an indefinite time will also create uncertain and easily negated arguments In addition, which model to use depends on the types of questions The most commonly used model is that of explanatory behavior (model 1) This model accounts for 77.2 % In specific cases, given the context of the argument, such answering methods may become unconvincing arguments and they may not be of interest to rebuttal 3.2.2 Characteristics of argument through the control of the moderator of the interpellation sessions The moderators of the National Assembly of Vietnam have mostly performed well the tasks of coordinating the speeches, declaring conventions, methods, the content of the discussion, orientation, reasonable adjustments (eg 3.33, 3.34), debate, support questioning (eg 3.35)… However, there are still a few cases where the moderators “commit on behalf of…”; bias in evaluating debates (eg 3.40) Theoretically, the argument at interpellation sessions should be carried out in the form of exploratory or persuasive models However, in fact, on the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam, the model of information-seeking conversation is mainly used There are still conversations that have not fully resolved the original purpose of the interpellation The model reflecting interactions (in the phase of debate-confrontation) at some interpellation 3sessions shows that the commonly used model is the A1- B1 model The 4-turn argument model is rarely used This reflects the low contention Besides “problematic” cases with unconvincing arguments, there are cases that have not been noticed to counter or redirect the conversation properly In addition, the supporting participation of “the third party” (A1', A2' and B1' in the argument models) is not much In cases of highly interactive argument, there is still the phenomenon in which the respondent has not answered satisfactorily on the issue (shown in model 5, model 8) In general, it is necessary to strengthen criticism in both quantity and quality to make a strong transition from “discussion” to “argument” Symbols in the interaction model: A: The questioner; B: The respondent A1, A2, A3: A’s turns of speech A1’, A2’: Turns of speech of supporter for A B1, B2: B’s turns of speech B1’, B2’: Turns of speech of supporter for B 18 3.3 Argument on the forum of the National Assembly (in interpellation sessions) 3.3.1 The model of argument (in interpellation sessions) Theoretically, the argument at interpellation sessions should be carried out in the form of exploratory or persuasive models However, in fact, on the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam, the model of information-seeking conversation is mainly used There are still conversations that have not fully resolved the original purpose of the interpellation The model reflecting interactions (in the phase of debate-confrontation) at some interpellation sessions shows that the commonly used model is the A1- B1 model 3.3.2 The quality of argument (in interpellation sessions) 3.3.2.1 Good arguments (in interpellation sessions) Through analyzing a number of cases, a good argument must first ensure the general criteria of a good argument in any context or condition In addition, a good argument in interpellation sessions of the forum of the National Assembly also has the following characteristics: - The language of the argument must be coherent and free from grammatical and semantic errors with appropriate rhetorical elements - Good interpellation questions must have the interpellation method in the form of close-ended questions or open-ended questions but contains the hypothesis of the questioners These arguments often use operators that strengthen the argument or reasoning The purposes of this type of question are to test or find an appropriate choice of hypothesis, to ask for justification or a commitment to action - Using the argument method to present a clear argumentative purpose - Using operators that strengthen the argument or reasoning; Negative modality operators are used in conjunction with appropriate logical arguments - Using many types of reasoning (serialized to form strings) Each type of partial reasoning must adhere to a definite reasoning pattern - Cognitive metaphorical expressions are an important factor to create strength and persuasion for a good argument 3.3.2.2 Unconvincing arguments (in interpellation sessions) Besides sharp arguments showing good criticism, there still exists weak arguments or fallacies4 at the forum of the National Assembly A There are cases where a weak argument will be a fallacy, but there are cases where it is just weak due to the lack of rigor; then, if there is a requirement to provide sufficient reasoning to confirm the validity of the conclusion, the speaker can prove it, then the original argument is weak Within the scope of this thesis, we have not had the conditions to fully present the transition “from a weak argument to a fallacy”, so we temporarily accept the flawed arguments at the forum of the National Assembly forum to be a weak argument or fallacy and collectively referred to as unconvincing arguments 19 weak argument can have conclusions that are still correct or appropriate, but in the argument model, there are qualifiers expressed through modality operators (perception of indeterminate quantity, perception through frivolous information ) The evidence given is only small and personal arguments… Types of unconvincing arguments are presented in detail in terms of commonly used situations and general argument diagrams (27 diagrams: the diagram of unconvincing arguments due to emotion, the diagram of unconvincing arguments due to bias, the diagram of unconvincing arguments due to ambiguity in language…) 3.4 Comments on the use of arguments on the National Assembly forum (in interpellation sessions) 3.4.1 Comments on the use of arguments in interpellating, answering, and moderating act The delegates have collected some information related to the controversial issue, such as the source of information, reliability, and relevance of information, up-to-date information Besides, they have also evaluated information related to the controversial issue from multiple perspectives (warrant, rebuttal, and qualifier for conclusions) The delegates have developed interrogative sentences and questions that show good criticism, which is important to create an atmosphere of argument and effective questioning However, there are still questions that are mere “information seeking”, which not generate criticism during the interpellation sessions As a supervisor, the delegate can find out information to make judgments and hypotheses for the issue They can investigate the information before participating in interpellation sessions The process of collecting and capturing information requires a lot of time, sometimes it is a whole process Therefore, strengthening the team of delegates is necessary When there are appropriate, rigorous, and “indisputable” arguments with closed-ended question types with high interpellation to show the spirit of accountability, such as yes/no should or should not questions, the interrogation questions will be sharper The actual content of the interrogative dialogues plays a role in guiding the answering behavior which should be substantial and complete with a clear point of view and be presented in a convincing manner For moderating behavior, key factors are flexibility, objective view, grasp of all issues, processes, and procedures, and being acumen when assessing the quality of arguments, interaction, and dialogue They factors enable the moderator to have the right influence to create an effective interpellation session 3.4.2 Comments on the use of arguments in argumentative conversations Research results from the interpellation sessions show that the number of interactions in the argumentative conversations is not much Argument models are often incomplete and lack a retraction 20 phase of inappropriate dialogue The participation of supporters of the two main dialogues should be encouraged An appropriate response method is required for unconvincing arguments showing an unreasonable turn of the conversation From the clarification of implicit premises in unconvincing argument types, critical methods for common unconvincing arguments are analyzed based on S Toulmin’s model By clarifying the facts, qualifiers, and rebuttal (potential) in the arguments according to the unconvincing argument diagrams, the thesis has proposed a system of basic critical questions for each type of unconvincing argument (24 diagrams) 3.5 Concluding remarks Applying the contextual approach to interpellation sessions, chapter has obtained the following results: Besides the sharp arguments, there exist some unconvincing arguments at the National Assembly forum These unconvincing arguments may belong to the following groups: some unconvincing arguments due to “unimportance”, some unconvincing arguments in the inference process; some unconvincing arguments on language It is possible to generalize to 20 unconvincing arguments corresponding to 27 models Interpellation questions at the National Assembly forum showing weak authorship include 1, open-ended questions (no hypothesis from the speaker about the answer) with the main purpose of finding out information; 2, close-ended questions (the speaker has hypothesized answers) with no argument of subsequent turns In addition to the purpose of exchanging and confirming information, the questions are also used for the purposes of interpellating to hold accountable or asking for a commitment to future action There are cases where the argument in the questions is some unconvincing arguments such as: asking for sharing, understanding; questioning based on petty evidence, general questions, questions that are not the responsibility of the respondent The questioning method was also surveyed and evaluated with different models In fact, the context of the conversation is “interpellation”, so it is necessary to raise the level of criticism by changing and adjusting the type of argumentative conversation On the basis of clarifying the rebuttal factors and qualifiers from the generalized argument diagram according to S Toulmin’s model, chapter has presented a critical method for 27 models of unconvincing arguments (through 24 types of diagrams) In terms of conversational interaction, it can be seen that the conversation model reflecting the interaction is still simple (A-A’ model) On the other hand, in the model of highly argumentative 21 conversations, there is a lack of a withdrawal of commitment (of the questioner) or an “agreement” of the respondent The participation of supporters is still limited The moderators of the forum of the National Assembly have an important role in the movement and interaction of the interpellation sessions Through a number of interpellation sessions, the moderators basically did a good job of coordinating the rotation of words and orientation to promote complete and important interpolations CONCLUSION Using integrated research directions, the thesis has the following specific results: In addition to the structure with main components (argument/data, reasoning, conclusion) the argument can also be analyzed with an extended structure of components according to S.Toulmin’s point of view The argument structure according to S.Toulmin’s diagram has the role of eliciting objection and support when arguing The criteria of a good argument depend on the following attributes: validity, soundness, clarity, sufficiency, relevance, reasonability, and cogency When arguing, it is necessary to pay attention to the 10 rules of a reasonable argument and the logical transition of conversational forms If the criteria of a good argument are violated, the argument rule creates weak arguments/ fallacies In fact, the composition of delegates, purposes, duration, and principles of interpellation activities at the National Assembly of Vietnam have their own peculiarities That more or less affects the quality of debate Arguments in turns of speeches on the forum of the National Assembly through interpellation sessions take the form of hierarchical structures The manner in which the argument is presented tends to depend on the function of the discourse An argument in question and interpellation discourse often has a conclusion at the end, while an argument in moderating and answering discourse often has a preceding conclusion In particular, question and interpellation discourse has the appearance of a conclusion that is a question Argument in interpellation discourse tends to exist as complex arguments Argument is presented in four types and is built from material forms which are typical of the context of the argumentation The argument indicators appear in almost all major arguments It is noteworthy that the contrary connectors with the function of leading the opposing arguments have created a multi-faceted perspective in the argument In addition, the use of listing connectors is a prominent 22 feature of the arguments in turns of speeches on the forum of the National Assembly Operators have the effect of strengthening reasoning are limited-used Instead, modal operators are used a lot (especially modal operators exhibiting awareness of approximations, weak commitment, etc.) The use of modal operators in specific cases has reduced the speaker’s commitment to the speech act, causing the argument to lose its sharpness The thesis has determined the strength and weakness scale of groups of modal operators associated with types of linguistic acts in the argument In addition, the coherence in argumentative discourse also plays an important role in creating argument effectiveness Reasoning in argumentative discourse is used in a variety of ways, which can be generalized into four main groups (reasoning by value, reasoning by cause and effect, reasoning by scale comparison, and reasoning by interpellation method) Reasoning by cause and effect tends to be used the most Reasoning combines in series to form coherent arguments Each type of reasoning is generalized into general diagrams, which form the basis for the process of receiving and generating arguments The movement of argumentative conversations at the forum of the National Assembly of Vietnam was surveyed through the interaction of speech turns, reflecting the stages of argumentative conversations (with types of models) In general, there are still sessions that have not shown dynamism and the final result still mainly stops in the form of searching for and delivering information As a result, there are still cases where the difference of opinion has not been thoroughly resolved Besides good and sharp arguments, there are still unconvincing arguments that affect the quality of conversation Good arguments often have clear, and coherent language Good interrogative questions often take the form of closed or open questions, but implicitly imply the questioner’s hypothesis, use an argumentative method to express a clear argument, use a combination of many reasoning types (reasoning chain), use operators that strengthen reasoning, negative modal operators combined with appropriate logical reasoning and cognitive metaphorical expressions Unconvincing arguments are caused by emotions, personal attacks, and inappropriate circumstances These unconvincing arguments are generalized to 27 models The thesis has identified a system of argumentative questions associated with unconvincing arguments placed in the context of a conversation (for arguments that are caused by emotions, personal attacks, and inappropriate circumstances, it is necessary to question the importance of relevance, sufficiency, soundness, etc.) 23 Although some of the above research results have been obtained, the thesis still has the limitation that it has not been conducted to understand the relationship between the modal operators at the end of the sentence, word order, sentence structure, arguments, and characteristics of arguments at the forum of the National Assembly from a rhetorical perspective In addition, in order to argue effectively, it is also necessary to take into account the impact on the third audience (We can find out the characteristics of language aimed at the audience call for their agreement and support, etc.) That raises the issue of using arguments that are not only right and rational but also to an artistic level 24 ... the qualifier for the conclusion If all objections have been fully covered, the conclusion will not need to use qualifiers expressing the low soundness However, it was found that the rebuttal... arguments (according to S Toulmin’s model) is studied with six elements: data, warrant, claim, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing of the warrant The elements of data, warrant and claim according to this... be linguistic acts that lead to the facts, justifications, supporting justifications, qualifiers, and rebuttal for the generalized argument b Types of argumentative conversation There are seven