Argumentation as a discourse practice (Didactic and Linguistic concepts)

Argumentative competence, written or oral argumantation skills are essential in the process of academic non-academic communication. Raising this competence is of particular importance in the education process, which ultimately focuses on promoting the development of general, intercultural communication and stratehic learning skills.The competence to create an argumentative text is complex and includes different dimensions, which means the selection, construction, grouping of arguments, the proper conduct of argumentative reasoning. The systematization of the various concepts and respectives contained in it allows the arguments to be divided into two groups: speaker-oriented and interaction-oriented.Argumentative discussions and organized discussions processes generate discourse that is equated with the notion of community. Argumentation from the perspective of discourse analysis is a discource practice, which is realized in a specific context (contextualized), arises interactively, develops, models and is perceived by the participants in the interaction as argumentation. Strategic reasoning skills, as a discourse practice, instill in everyone in a particular society, in a particular discourse area, mandatory and important knowledge for all and form a solid system of thinking that ultimately leads to reasoned discussions processes.

The Dramatic Arc in the Development of Argumentation Skills of Upper Secondary School Students in Geography Education

Geography education can facilitate learners’ critical thinking and argumentation skills to make well-reasoned decisions on social and environmental issues. This study reports on a geography course consisting of 18 lessons, each of them 75 min, designed to afford intensive practice in argumentation to upper secondary school students (n = 21) and following the dramatic arc. The study produces examples of different developmental pathways of upper secondary school students’ argumentation during the geography course. In this qualitative case study, the data were collected from learning diaries and analyzed using content analysis following ARRA-analysis (Analysis of Reasoning, Rhetorics and Argumentation), which is based on Toulmin’s argumentation model. The results indicated that most of the students developed justified arguments and composed clear claims and relevant rhetorical modes such as qualifications, rhetorical questions and rebuttals. Justification categories that were mainly used were backings, grounds and warrants. However, some students had difficulties in recognizing the main claim and arguments. The students developed their argumentation skills following the dramatic arc. They possessed the prerequisites for argumentative reasoning and writing but needed further practice in analytical and critical writing.

Omnis determinatio est negatio

Omnis Determinatio est Negatio. On Habermas, Myth, and Truth With his monumental genealogy of Western philosophy Jürgen Habermas delivers an achievement that is worthy of great praise. In carefully constructed arguments he presents in detail the close connection between, and the mutual indebtedness of, religion and philosophy as they developed in the West for more than two millennia. With regard to the current state of affairs he acknowledges that we should continue to engage with subjects such as purpose, meaningfulness, and how to behave. He proposes that where religion is withdrawing, philosophy should take its place. In spite of its great merits, there are some fundamental shortcomings in the overall image Habermas wishes to convey. By suggesting that Western religion and philosophy have been the major driving forces not only of cognitive but also of ethical progress, he underestimates the moral value of pre-Socratic and other holistic world views that radically differ from the idiosyncratic Western one. For example, he perceives Homer’s mythological thinking as nothing but a primitive state of mind against which the ethical and intellectual progress of later developments could come to the fore. This paper proposes that we should give much more weight to the difference between the ‘cognitive’ and the ‘ethical’ than Habermas does. In principle, as a form of argumentative reasoning, philosophy belongs to the (cognitive) domain of truth. As such, it is not a suitable successor to religion. On the other hand, provided they operate primarily within their own domain – which is the domain of meaningfulness –, religion (in whatever form), literature and the arts, ancient myth, friendship, love, and humour may still be best equipped to sharpen our sense of justice and help us deal with feelings of moral disorientation and fragmentation.

Reasoning and Appraisal in Multimodal Argumentation

The development of new media enlarges the repertoire of semantic resources in creating a discourse. Apart from language, visual and sound symbols can all become semantic sources, and a synergy of different modality and symbols can be used to complete argumentative reasoning and evaluation. In the framework of multimodal argumentation and appraisal theory, this study conducted quantitative and multimodal discourse analysis on a new media discourse Building a community of shared future for humankind and found that visual symbols can independently fulfill both reasoning and evaluation in the argumentative discourse. An interplay of multiple modalities constructs a multi-layered semantic source, with verbal subtitles as a frame and a sound system designed to reinforce the theme and mood. In addition, visual modality is implicit in constructing the stance and evaluation of the discourse, with the verbal mode playing the role of “anchoring,” i.e. providing explicit explanation. A synergy of visual, acoustic, and verbal modalities could effectively transmit conceptual, interpersonal, and discursive meanings, but the persuasive result with the audience from different cultural backgrounds might be mixed.

An Answer Set Programming Approach to Argumentative Reasoning in the ASPIC+ Framework

A major research direction in AI argumentation is the study and development of practical computational techniques for reasoning in different argumentation formalisms. Compared to abstract argumentation, developing algorithmic techniques for different structured argumentation formalisms, such as assumption-based argumentation and the general ASPIC+ framework, is more challenging. At present, there is a lack of efficient approaches to reasoning in ASPIC+. We develop a direct declarative approach based on answer set programming (ASP) to reasoning in an instantiation of the ASPIC+ framework. We establish formal foundations for direct declarative encodings for reasoning in ASPIC+ without preferences for several central argumentation semantics, and detail ASP encodings of semantics for which reasoning about acceptance is NP-hard in ASPIC+. Empirically, the ASP approach scales up to frameworks of significant size, thereby answering the current lack of practical computational approaches to reasoning in ASPIC+ and providing a promising base for capturing further generalizations within ASPIC+.

An Investigation into the Development of Structure and Evidence Use in Argumentative Writing

This study aims to investigate EFL learners’ argumentative writing based on structural elements in Toulmin model (1953, 2008). It also explores the overall use of evidence in supporting claims. It was found that claim and data were the basic structural elements used by Chinese EFL learners in constructing argumentative writing. The respective use of counterargument data and rebuttal was significantly correlated with the quality of argumentation. In argumentative reasoning, the types of evidence and the number of evidence used by participants were very limited. Logical analysis was found to be the most frequently used data to support claims. Less proficient learners’ use of evidence was not effective or persuasive to produce valid argument. The findings provide useful insights into the instruction of argumentative writing for EFL teachers.

Discours et contre-discours autour de l’enseignement de la littérature à l’université

Cette étude prend en considération quelques extraits de discours scientifique / académique (trois contributions parues le volume du colloque Enseigner la littérature à l’université aujourd’hui qui s’est déroulé à l’Université Aix-en-Provence, du 10 au 12 mars 2011) qui plaident en faveur de (continuer) l’enseignement de la littérature, afin de faire ressortir quels sont les arguments enchaînés et la typologie du raisonnement argumentatif utilisé pour gagner l’adhésion du public. En outre, cette analyse du discours rend possible le parallèle avec des exemples de discours ordinaire (la section de commentaires qui suit l’article « Pourquoi il faut continuer d'enseigner les classiques de la littérature ? » écrit par Catherine Marle-Guyon et publié le 23 mars 2013) où des locuteurs, dont l’appartenance socio-professionnelle n’est pas toujours présentée et, si elle l’est, elle n’est pas vérifiable, introduisent leur position en mobilisant des ressources linguistiques qui seront, elles-aussi, soumises à notre analyse. De surcroît, en prenant comme cadre théorique général le modèle dialogal de l’argumentation (Plantin 2005, 2010), cette étude vise à répondre aux questions suivantes: a) quels sont les points faibles et les points forts du contexte socio-économique qui favorisent ou, au contraire, entravent l’étude de la littérature ? b) dans quelle mesure le couple « discours / contre-discours » est-il actualisé dans le corpus sur l’enseignement de la littérature? Discourse and counter-discourse on the teaching of literature at university The fact that the teaching of literature goes through a period of questioning and reconsideration is no longer a novelty: numerous conferences, scientific publications and opinions of non-specialists disseminated through media point to an epistemological crisis in the teaching of literature in general, and to a didactic and methodological crisis in the teaching of French literature to foreign learners, in particular. In this context, this study takes into account several cases of scientific/ academic discourse, namely, three contributions published in the proceedings of the conference Enseigner la littérature à l’université aujourd’hui which took place at Aix-en-Provence University, France, 10–12 March 2011. These contributions argue in favour of (continuing) teaching literature and are discussed in this study in order to highlight the arguments and the typology of argumentative reasoning used to gain and/or to strengthen the audience’s commitment. In addition, this discourse analysis makes it possible to draw parallels with examples of ordinary speech, as seen in the comment section that follows the article Pourquoi il faut continuer d'enseigner les classiques de la littérature? written by Catherine Marle-Guyon and published 23 March 2013. In the comment, the speakers, whose socio-professional status is not always identifiable, express their attitude by mobilizing linguistic resources, which will be subjected to our analysis, too. Moreover, taking the dialogic model of argumentation (Plantin 2005, 2010) as a general theoretical framework, this study aims at answering the following questions: (a) what are the strengths and weaknesses of the socio-economic context favouring or, on the contrary, hindering the study of literature? (b) to what extent do the notions of discourse/ counter-discourse find practical anchorage in the corpus of the teaching of literature? In this study, the counter-discourse does not refer to the stance against teaching literature (because any reasonable individual, researcher, teacher or not, is aware that literature is necessary for education and human fulfilment), but to the stance against certain arguments wrongly rooted in the collective consciousness that would justify the study of literature. Key words: literature; argument; counter argument; type of reasoning.