Argumentation is considered to be a discursive activity by which speakers defend their positions (Schiffrin, 1987, p. 17). Besides, it is a complex of communicative acts and any argumentation is included in the argumentative discourse (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009, p.94).  In the cognitive aspect argumentation is a process aimed at obtaining new knowledge and method of its formation. From this point of view, argumentation is studied as a contribution to the creation of a common model of human thinking and interpreted in the broad context of its activities. Since  argumentation occurs by putting forward arguments there is a need to classify arguments as regards communicative and cognitive functions the communicative nature of which is reflected in the speaker's intention to influence the recipient and the cognitive component is determined by the type of verbalized information. In particular, we distinguish such functions as establishing the truth of the Thesis, establishing the falsity of the Thesis, establishing the appropriateness of the action and others.

To highlight the argument features in that context one should consider additional criteria (Doronkina, 2021).

From a compositional perspective, the placement of the thesis within an argument creates two primary scenarios: 1) being in preposition the Thesis precedes the supporting or refuting reasons; 2) the Thesis follows as a conclusion derived from the reason and locates in postposition.

The role of the Thesis in argumentation depends on its relationship with the reasons provided. Direct causative relationships indicate objective interactions between objects or phenomena, whereas indirect relationships often emerge in the flow of communication between ideas. For one thing, the Thesis and the rest of argument can be connected in causative manner, the Thesis playing the role either cause or consequence. From another point of view, the Thesis should be deduced, i.e it is an opinion. In that context it can be only conclusion apart from the presence or absence of causative relations.

Another key criterion is the alignment between the Thesis and the supporting reason. This involves evaluating whether the reason either substantiates the Thesis or casts doubt on its accuracy. This criterion is only relevant when the thesis is presented as a preposition.

The method of reasoning is also a crucial factor. Traditionally, deductive, inductive, and rhetorical types of argumentation are recognized. However, in this classification, it’s more accurate to distinguish only between deductive and non-deductive arguments, as deductive reasoning serves as proof. Notably, the term "proof" is used in various contexts with differing meanings.

According to some scholars, whose view we share, the proof is a specific case of argumentation. Obviously, the purpose of the argument is to convince the reader or listener. Nevertheless, it is performed by reaching intemediate goals, for example in case of proof it is establishing the truth.

A criterion, such as the stance toward the feasibility of an action, relates to the concept of "justification," which refers to the process by which a statement attains a certain level of probability. There exists a unique type of argumentation in which the thesis centers on the feasibility of an action.

If consideration consists of judgments where premise is followed by conclusion we call it argument-conclusion. The Thesis of each argument can be either cause or effect, the type of deducing can be either deductive or inductive.

In case of proof we deal with a statement whose truthfulness must be proved or disproved. Proof as an argument has such characteristics: 1) the Thesis is in preposition; 2) the Thesis is a consequence; 3) the conclusion agrees with the Thesis 4) the type of deducing is deductive.

A kind of proof is a refutation or disproof. It is different from the  proof in that the conclusion does not converge with the thesis. However, a case when the conclusion does not refute the thesis, but only raises doubts about its veracity, should be added to this type of argument. It means that not only deductive inducing is possible.

The features of confirmation, another type of argument includes the following: Thesis in preposition playing the role of consequence, inductive type of deducing. Discussing of feasibility is impossible.

Explanation aimed at revealing the cause of a certain event or phenomenon also can be seen as argument. Scientific explanation is based on the laws of nature. In that context to explain the fact means to make it within the scope of the proven law. According to the Deductive-Nomological Model,, a scientific explanation is made up of two key components: the explanandum, a statement that describes the phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans, which includes the set of statements presented to clarify or account for the phenomenon.  (Hempel & Oppenheim, p. 247). In addition, explanans contains sentences describing antecedent conditions С₁, С₂, …, С_n, and references to the general lows of nature. L₁, L₂, …, L_k. Besides, explanandum must be a logical consequence of explanans. Comparing this model with the Toulmin’s model of argument consisting of Ground, Thesis, Warrant, Backing and Rebuttal, we can match С₁, С₂, …, С_n, and Thesis; explanandum and the Ground; L₁, L₂, …, L_k and Backing. So, explanation as an argument is charactetized by the Thesis in postposition acting as a cause, either deductive and inductive deducing.

Finally, justification as an argument is directed to assessing the feasibility or necessity of action. Its features are the following: the Thesis is in preposition and agrees with the conclusion acted as a cause, The deducing is non-deductive.

References

1. Doronkina, N. Ye. (2021). Osoblyvosti argumentatyvnykh struktur v anhliiskomovnykh naukovo-tekhnichnykh stattiakh [Peculiarities of argumentative structures in English-language scientific and technical articles]. (Dysertatsiia kandydata filolohichnykh nauk, 10.02.04). Kherson. [in Ukrainian]
2. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948, reprinted 1965). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175. Reprinted in Hempel, 1965, 245–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/286983
3. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). Los Angeles: Sage.
4. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.