A Discursive and Interactional Approach to Argumentation

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v37i3p416-441

Keywords:

Political argument, Debate, Data, Orientation, Question, Representation

Abstract

This paper is based on a case study focused on election night specials (2012 French presidential elections; 2014 European Parliament elections in France). Specifically we observe how “rough facts” (the scores that are expressed by figures which are officially announced and undisputed) are discursively oriented towards a specific evaluative conclusion (“this is a good score” / “this is a bad score”). Based on this analysis we will make explicit the theoretical and methodological choices that back up our approach, which we characterize as a comprehensive approach to argumentation. This approach is founded notably on the notion of argumentative question (stasis) determining the structure of the data that are supposed to be represented (modeled); it also assumes that the evaluation of arguments falls to the arguers rather than to the analyst.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Marianne Doury, Université Paris Dauphine

    Université Paris Dauphine (France) Laboratoire Communication et Politique - IRISSO, CNRS.

  • Christian Plantin, Lumière University Lyon 2

    Université Lumière Lyon 2; École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (France) Laboratoire Interactions, Corpus, Apprentissages, Représentations – ICAR, CNRS.

  • Camille Guichard-Libersac, Université Bordeaux Montaigne

    Doutoranda em Ciências da Linguagem pela Université Bordeaux Montaigne (França) em cotutela com a Universidade de São Paulo (Brasil). Tradutora.

  • Nathalia Akemi Sato Mitsunari, University of São Paulo

    Doutoranda em Letras pela Universidade de São Paulo (Brasil). Tradutora.

  • Gabriel Isola-Lanzoni, University of São Paulo

    Doutorando em Letras pela Universidade de São Paulo (Brasil). Tradutor.

References

AMOSSY, R. L’argumentation dans le discours. Paris: Nathan, 2012 [2000].

AMOSSY, R. Argumentation et analyse du discours: perspectives théoriques et découpages disciplinaires. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, n. 1, p. 200-2017, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.200.

AMOSSY, R. 2010. La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité verbale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2010.

AMOSSY, R. Faut-il intégrer l’argumentation dans l’analyse du discours? Problématiques et enjeux. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, n. 9, p. 39-58, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.1346.

ANSCOMBRE, J.-C.; DUCROT, O. L’argumentation dans la langue. Liège&Bruxelles: Mardaga, 1983.

AUROUX, S. Argumentation et anti-rhétorique. La mathématisation de la logique classique. Hermès, n. 15, p. 129-144, 1995. Disponível em: https://shs.cairn.info/revue-hermes-la-revue-1995-1-page-129?lang=fr. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024.

BAKHTINE, M. Esthétique et théorie du roman. Paris: Gallimard, 1978.

BLAIR, J. A.; JOHNSON, R. H. The Recent Development of Informal Logic. In: BLAIR, J. A.; JOHNSON, R. H. (Orgs.). Informal logic: The first international symposium. Inverness: Edgepress, 1980, p. 3-28.

BRETON, P. L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte, 1996.

BROWN, W. R. Two Traditions of Analogy. Informal Logic, v. 11, n. 3, p. 161-172, 1989.

CHARAUDEAU, P. Discours journalistique et positionnements énonciatifs. Frontières et derives. Semen, n. 22, p. 29-44, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.2793.

CHARAUDEAU, P.; MAINGUENEAU, D. Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil, 2002.

CHOMSKY, N. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton, 1964.

COX, J. R.; WILLARD, C. A. (Orgs). 1982. Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982.

DANBLON, E. La fonction persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique: origines et actualité. Paris: Colin, 2005.

DECLERCQ, G. L’art d’argumenter. Structures Rhétoriques et littéraires. Paris: Éditions Universitaires, 1993.

DOURY, M. Une discussion dans un commerce d’habitués. Les Carnets du Cediscor, n. 7, p. 119-134, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/cediscor.309.

DOURY, M. “Ce n’est pas un argument !” Sur quelques aspects des théorisations spontanées de l’argumentation. Pratiques, n. 139, p. 111-128, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.1207.

DOURY, M. Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: the Case of Comparative Arguments. In: EEMEREN, F. H. van; GARSSEN, B. (Orgs.). Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, p. 141-156.

DOURY, M.; & KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, C. La place de l’accord dans l’argumentation polémique: le cas du débat Sarkozy/Royal (2007). À contrario, v. 16, n. 2, p. 63-87, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/aco.112.0063.

DOURY, M.; TSERONIS, A. Les faits et les arguments: la mise en discours des scores électorau. In: GOES, J.; MANGIANTE, J.-M.; OLMO, F.; PINEIRA, C. (Orgs.). Le langage manipulateur. Pourquoi et comment argumenter? Arras: Presses Universitaires d’Artois, 2014, p. 193-210.

DUCROT, O. Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Minuit, 1980.

DUCROT, O. Opérateurs argumentatifs et visée argumentative. Cahiers de linguistique française, n. 5, p. 7-36, 1983. Disponível em: https://www.unige.ch/clf/fichiers/pdf/02-Ducrot_nclf5.pdf. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024.

DUCROT, O. Les modificateurs déréalisants. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 24, n. 1, p. 145-165, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00112-R.

DUCROT, O. Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique. In: DOURY, M.; MOIRAND, S. (Orgs.). L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2004, p. 17-34.

EBEL, M.; FIALA, P. Sous le consensus, la xénophobie. Paroles, arguments, contexts (1961-1981). Thèse. Institut de Science Politique, Mémoires et documents 16. Lausanne, 1983.

Eemeren, F. H. van & Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies : a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective (Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum).

Eemeren, F. H. van & Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation : The Pragma-Dialectical Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (éds). 1987. Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches (Dordrecht : Foris).

FOUCAULT, M. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

FOUCAULT, M. L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard, 1971.

FREGE, G. Idéographie. Tradução do alemão [Begriffschrift], prefácio, notas e index Corine Besson. Posfácio Jonathan Barnes. Paris: Vrin, 1999 [1879].

GOVIER, T. A practical study of argument. 5th edition. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2001.

GRIZE, J.-B. Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys, 1990.

HAMBLIN, C. L. Fallacies. Londres: Methuen, 1970.

JACQUIN, J. Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au coeur d’une pratique verbale Bruxelles: De Boeck, 2014.

KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, C. L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage Paris: Armand Colin, 1980.

MAINGUENEAU, D. Initiation aux méthodes de l’analyse du discours. Paris: Hachette, 1976.

MAINGUENEAU, D. L’analyse du discours. Paris: Hachette, 1990.

MICHELI, R. L’émotion argumentée. L’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français. Paris: Le Cerf, 2010.

MICHELI, R. Les visées de l’argumentation et leurs corrélats langagiers: une approche discursive. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, n. 9, p. 59-75, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.1406.

MOESCHLER, J. Argumentation et conversation. Éléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Paris : Hatier, 1985.

PATILLON, M. Éléments de rhétorique classique. Paris: Armand Colin, 2005 [1990].

PLANTIN, C. Essais sur l’argumentation. Paris: Kimé, 1990.

PLANTIN, C. L’argument du paralogisme. Hermès, n. 15, p. 241-258, 1995. Disponível em: https://shs.cairn.info/revue-hermes-la-revue-1995-1-page-245?lang=fr. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024.

PLANTIN, C. Les raisons des émotions. In: BONDI, M. (Org.). Forms of argumentative discourse / Per un’analisi linguistica dell’argomentare. Bologne: CLUEB, 1998, p. 3-50.

PLANTIN, C. L’argumentation. Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris: PUF, 2005.

PLANTIN, C. Critique de la parole: les fallacies dans le discours argumentative. In: ATAYAN, V.; PIRAZZINI, D. (Orgs.). Argumentation: théorie – langue – discours. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009, p. 51-70.

PLANTIN, C. Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours émotionné. Berne: Peter Lang, 2011.

PLANTIN, C. Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Une introduction notionnelle aux études d’argumentation. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2016.

PERELMAN, C.; OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1988 [1958].

ROBRIEUX, J.-J. Éléments de rhétorique et d’argumentation. Paris: Dunod, 1993.

SUCHMAN, L. A. Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

TOULMIN, S. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

TUTESCU, M. L’argumentation. Introduction à l’étude du discours. Bucarest: Editura Universitãţiidin Bucureşti, 2003. Disponível em: http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/lls/MarianaTutescu-Argumentation/1.htm. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024.

WALTON, D. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1996.

WALTON, D. Argumentation Schemes for Argument from Analogy. In: RIBEIRO, H. J. (Org.). Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, p. 23-40.

WEBER, M. De la sociologie compréhensive. Les cahiers psychologie politique, n. 19, p. 1-10, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34745/numerev_691.

WEBER, M. Über einige Kategorien der verstehenden Soziologie. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur IV, p. 253–294, 1913. Disponível em: http://www.sociosite.net/topics/texts/weber_1913.pdf. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024.

WHALEY, B. Evaluations of Rebuttal Analogy Users: Ethical and Competence Considerations. Argumentation, v. 12, n. 3, p. 351-365, 1998.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-30

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 3 (2024): Language(s) in textual, enunciative and discursive studies

Section

Traslations

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Marianne Doury, Christian Plantin; Camille Guichard-Libersac, Nathalia Akemi Sato Mitsunari, Gabriel Isola-Lanzoni

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The Editorial Board authorizes free access to and distribution of published contentes, provided that the source is cited, that is, granding credit to the authors and Linha D'Água and preserving the full text. The author is allowed to place the final version (postprint / editor’s PDF) in an institutional/thematic repositor or personal page (site, blog), immediately after publication, provided that it is available for open access and comes without any embargo period. Full reference should be made to the first publication in Linha D'Água. Access to the paper should at least be aligned with the access the journal offers.

As a legal entity, the University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto School of Philosophy, Sciences and Languages owns and holds the copyright deriving from the publication. To use the papers, Paidéia adopts the Creative Commons Licence, CC BY-NC non-commercial attribution. This licence permits access, download, print, share, reuse and distribution of papers, provided that this is for non-commercial use and that the source is cited, giving due authorship credit to Linha D'Água. In these cases, neither authors nor editors need any permission.

Partial reproduction of other publications

Citations of more than 500 words, reproductions of one or more figures, tables or other illustrions should be accompanied by written permission from the copyright owner of the original work with a view to reproduction in Linha D'Água. This permission has to be addressed to the author of the submitted manuscript. Secondarily obtained rights will not be transferred under any circumstance.

How to Cite

DOURY, Marianne; PLANTIN, Christian. A Discursive and Interactional Approach to Argumentation. Linha D’Água, São Paulo, v. 37, n. 3, p. 416–441, 2024. DOI: 10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v37i3p416-441. Disponível em: https://revistas.usp.br/linhadagua/article/view/230052. Acesso em: 1 feb. 2026.