Polysyllogistic structures in modern oratorical speech (epicheireme)

INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the study is to clarify the concept of epichaereme, to analyze its use in the texts of Patriarch Kirill. The global, i.e. beyond the scope of this research, the purpose of the research is to develop the theory of cognitive schemas used in different types of discourse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The application of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of polysyllogisms is substantiated. This approach combines cognitive linguistics, traditional linguistics, logic, and rhetoric. The terminological basis of the research is taken from logic and rhetoric. The phenomena designated by the corresponding terms are considered as cognitive phenomena, for which the traditional term figures of thought is used. The study is based on the material of Patriarch Kirill’s public speeches.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The theoretical approaches to the definition of polysyllogisms and epicheiremes are analyzed in detail. Combined enthymemes are considered as the simplest type of polysyllogisms. It is established that they are constructed as a sum of enthymemes with a prepositive thesis and a postpositive conclusion, which are mediated by an argument. The article considers the history of the qualification of epicheires in literature. A model for the analysis of epichoires is proposed, which involves the identification of elements missing at the surface level and, accordingly, the definition of meanings implicitly translated into epichoires. The connection between epichrome and the phenomenon of silence is considered.
CONCLUSION. Epicheirems are qualified not only as a way of presenting complex judgments, but also as a means of suggestion and manipulation. The conclusion is made about the prospects of interdisciplinary research of polysyllogisms, which has in the future the construction of a unified theory of textual structures within the framework of cognitive linguistics.

1. Cheban A.G. Figures of Aristotle’s thought in the formation of Heidegger’s understanding of language: symbolon as transcendence. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura = Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 2022, no. 3 (95), pp. 94-99. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2022.3.15, https://elibrary.ru/nsqysa

2. Karpukhina V.N. The cognitive models of text production and interpretation: the axiological linguistics aspect. Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Izvestiya of Altai State University, 2013, no. 2-2 (78), pp. 145-149. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rseyfv

3. Tarasov M.I. Cognitive models and narrative construction. Izvestiya Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Izvestia of Smolensk State University, 2020, no. 2 (50), pp. 90-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35785/2072-9464-2020-50-2-90-103, https://elibrary.ru/wwkytf

4. Abelson R. The structures of persuasion. In: Language and Modeling of Social Interaction. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1987, pp. 317-380. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ixdjvj

5. Susov A.A. Discourse modeling in terms of rhetorical theory. Vestnik VGU. Seriya Filologiya. Zhurnalistika = Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Philology. Journalism, 2006, no. 2, pp. 133-138. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ibvgot

6. Voronina L.V., Lopatin E.A. Cognitive and rhetorical aspects of the organization of modern legal communication. Yurislingvistika = Legal Linguistics, 2024, no. 31 (42), pp. 45-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14258/leglin(2024)3108, https://elibrary.ru/aoskyq

7. Minskii M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. Moscow, Ehnergiya Publ., 1979, 152 p. (In Russ.) https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01007654365?ysclid=m70coowdfy343227445

8. Petrova E.A. The peculiarities of expressing propozemes in polyssilogisms. Vestnik VoLGU. Seriya 2, Yazykoznanie = Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 2016, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 207-213. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2016.4.21, https://elibrary.ru/xdxvch

9. Annushkin V.I., Tarasov M.I., Chistyakova I.Yu. The Patriarch’s Rhetoric. Moscow, Rusistika, 2016, 258 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yjqjkl

10. Sorokina L.S. Functioning of logical figures in the modern sermon: the original and the translation. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Philology. Theory & Practice, 2020, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 316-319. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2020.1.63, https://elibrary.ru/vzzhhz

11. Malyukova O.V. Modern rhetorical narratives in the optics of Russian rhetoric. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura = Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 2022, no. 5 (97), pp. 31-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2022.5.3, https://elibrary.ru/yugpkl

12. Golodnov A.V Persuasive textualization strategy in rhetorical metadiscourse. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina = Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal, 2008, vol. 1, no. 4-2 (18), pp. 113-125. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sxbkit