Open AccessTYPES OF CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGIST AND CLIENT
Author(s) -
Lev G. Vasilyev,
M.S. Grineva
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
vestnik udmurtskogo universiteta. istoriâ i filologiâ
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2413-2454
pISSN - 2412-9534
DOI - 10.35634/2412-9534-2019-29-3-408-417
Subject(s) - psychology , argumentation theory , argumentative , irrational number , false accusation , cognition , typology , social psychology , schema (genetic algorithms) , harm , value (mathematics) , psychotherapist , epistemology , sociology , computer science , philosophy , geometry , mathematics , neuroscience , machine learning , anthropology
The paper examines the categorical semantics of claims refuted by the psychologist during a therapy/psychological counselling. The psychologist’s argumentation is directed at eliminating the client’s irrational beliefs and cognitive biases which might be the reason for psychological conflicts and might be preventing the rational evaluation of a problem situation. The aim of the study is to elucidate how irrational reasoning verbalized by the client creates a potential argumentative situation in which the counsellor reacts critically by advancing a counterclaim and subsequent counter-argumentation. The focus of the study is the semantic value of the client’s claims and the therapist’s counterclaims and their connection with the typology of cognitive distortions proposed by the American psychotherapist Aaron Beck. The analysis of authentic transcripts of counseling sessions yielded the following results. The semantic type of the counsellor’s counterclaim depends on the kind of cognitive distortion identified by the counsellor in the client’s speech. The most commonly occurring cognitive distortions refuted by the psychologist are imperative statements, labelling, self-accusation, catastrophizing, overgeneralization. They are manifested as actuative, definitive, designative, and evaluative claims.