The 7th Conference on Argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation will take place in Amsterdam from June 29 to July 2, 2010.
You will find here the detailed conference programme
This congress will host argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation, even some socio-argumentativists ! Thus, if French scholars are not many to be involved, due to the relative weakness of argumentative field in academic and research institutions in France, our so-called “epistemic community” will be well represented!
Francis Chateauraynaud (EHESS, GSPR, Paris) & Marianne Doury (CNRS, LCP / GSPR Paris) : “The collective making of temporal aspects in public debates”
The present paper deals with the processes by which actors involved in controversies produce competing representations of the temporal modalities of action and judgment, which play a crucial role in the dynamics of arguments. By examining, from a dual (both linguistic and sociological) perspective, the way argumentative processes and world events are connected, we investigate the functions and uses of argument schemes (e.g. causal reasoning, precedent, slippery slope argument …) and linguistic indicators supporting the stakes of temporality (such as “now”, “fatally”, “so inevitable,” “possibly”, “later”). Our contribution will be grounded on a computerized analysis of a large series of major controversies and polemics. The analysis will focus on significant situations, in which the relationships between past events and visions of the future constitute a major issue of the debate. Many examples will be taken from issues like nuclear power and radioactive waste, climate change, GMOs, pesticides, nanotechnologies, etc..
Marianne Doury (LCP – CNRS, Paris) & Christian Plantin (ICAR – CNRS, Lyon) : “Argument in students’ examination scripts: the analyst in disarray”
This paper, will focus on difficulties met by students when writing argumentative sequences. We will rely on studies elaborated within didactics of argumentation by Reichler-Béguelin (1990, 1992) on argumentative anomalies. The analysis of the student’s papers will follow the principle of charity i. e. grant the maximal coherence to the student’s writings. We will observe at which level students’ argumentative difficulties rise up – in micro-connections within a sentence or in the macro-structure of answers, and suggest that the appeal to argumentative indicators (“connecteurs”) roots in a Pavlovian equation “argumentation = argumentative indicators” (Plantin 1994), inherited from high school education. Such an approach of the data will enable us to assess different theories of argumentation, and to test whether they can account for such authentic argumentative productions (Garcia-Debanc 1994).
Assimakis Tseronis (CNRS LCP / GSPR Paris) : “Towards an empirically plausible classification of argumentative markers”
This paper explores the possibilities that the study of a corpus of texts opens up for the identification and description of argumentative markers. It seeks to provide a working definition and a classification of markers that can be of use in the search for arguments that language users employ or criticise in a corpus of texts. To this direction, the paper studies what it takes to identify the expression of a point of view or of disagreement, the establishment of common ground, various types of argument and the evaluation of these arguments by the parties involved in a discussion. The corpus is constituted of texts produced by a number of different agents on the topic of nanotechnologies and the controversies related to the risks and benefits that are attached to their development.
Put also an attention to the two following contributions by close colleagues :
Christian Plantin (University of Lyon, Lyon & CNRS, Lyon) : “Ruling the dialogue: so many ways”
This presentation focuses on the variety of systems of rules which can apply to dialogue s
First, different kinds of sets of rules on dialogue/conversation are distinguished: (1) Rules as observational regularities; (2) Grice’s Conversational maxims; (3) Rules of politeness ; (4) Ritual rules for specific speech event; (5) Rules for debates in specific settings; (6) Rules for specific dialog genres; (7) Rules for rational debate; (8) «Rules for Honorable Controversy». Second, these general concepts of rules for will be contrasted with different Muslim “etiquettes of debate” (adab of discussion and debate). Third, three main points about these systems of rules will be discussed: relative redundancy; possible theoretical / practical contradictions; impact on theoretical issues such as the concept of “deep disagreement”.
Raphaël Micheli (University of Lausanne, Lausanne) :”When words themselves become the objects of argumentation”
For the past few years, several significant argumentation scholars have taken a renewed interest in the role played by metalinguistic activity in argumentative discourse. When engaging in an argumentation, speakers quite often need to use language reflexively. In this line of thought, scholars such as Walton, Schiappa or Zarefsky have identified cases when dialogue shifts to a « verbal dispute about words » and have focused on the role played by definitions in argumentation. The aim of this paper is to better understand how these « verbal disputes » work within the realm of political discourse. I will present a detailed analysis of an argumentative exchange in which the disagreement between speakers specifically bears on what a word means and on whether or not it can legitimately be used. The data will include a controversy between two prominent French politicians about the words « liberal » and « liberalism ».