走出认识的误区--关于议论文体的"三要素"问题

文章学界对“三要素”的理解尚不科学。论点应是议论文中被论证或不对别的观点进行论证的观点。据此可将论点从众多观点中区分出来。论据是论证论点的客观实在性事实材料。分论点、被逻辑学当作推理前提的判断及神话、寓言、比喻性材料都不是论据。论证只是证明论点的过程。论点是一切议论文的要素;论证只是论证型议论文的要素;论据只是运用论据论证和综合论证型议论文的要素;三者的要素性有逐渐递减的趋向。论点对论据具有制约关系。论据对论点具有支持关系,这要求选取具有“反向求证”意义的论据或增加其数量。论证对论点和论据具有阐释关系,论证实为或由论点向论据或由论据向论点或两头对接式阐释。

Reflections On the "Three Essentials" in Argumentaries

The article assumes that in the circle of literary and critics, the interpretation of "three essentials" is somewhat far from scientific. Arguments are known to be opinions to be demonstrated or proved other than else in an argumentary piece of writing, in the light of which an argument can be distinguished from its like. Grounds of argument are factual materials used to demonstrate or prove an argument. Thus, a sub-argument, a pre-suppositional judgment, mythological, fable or metaphorical materials cannot be employed as grounds of argument. Demonstration is a process in which an argument is to be proved. Arguments are one of the essentials of all argumentary pieces of writing. However, demonstration is just one of the essentials in demonstrative argumentaries, while grounds of argument are one of the essentials of the argumnetaries, in which grounds or proofs are deployed to demonstrate an argument. It can be seen that grounds of argument are more or less conditioned or restricted by the argument.On the other hand, grounds of argument are supportive to the argument. Therefore, much more care should be taken when it comes to choose a well-grounded proof so as to reinforce the argumentation, as demonstrations devote to expounding arguments and their grounds.