Correction collaborative: aider son alli\u00e9 (pr\u00e9ciser)
\nCorrection r\u00e9futative: rectifier son opposant<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
France Culture, Signe des temps<\/i>, Marc Weitzmann
\nLa guerre nucl\u00e9aire peut-elle avoir lieu ?<\/i>, 10\/03\/2019
\nhttps:\/\/www.franceculture.fr\/emissions\/signes-des-temps\/la-guerre-nucleaire-peut-elle-avoir-lieu<\/p>\n
During a radio talk show between two specialists discussing the possibility of an apocalyptic nuclear war. Jean-Pierre Dupuy (J-P D) is the featured guest, Bruno Tertrais (BT) the discussant.<\/p>\n
| \n 11.05<\/p>\n BT \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 1<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n 4<\/p>\n 5<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n J-P D<\/i>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 7<\/p>\n 8<\/p>\n J-P D <\/i>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n | [10:43] donc sur les dilemmes heu \u00e9thiques de la dissuasion et sur le dilemmefondamental de la dissuasion faut-il pr\u00e9parer au mieux l’apocalypse<\/p>\n pour qu’elle xxxx on se rejoindra volontiers avec Jean-Pierre Dupuy\/ rapide<\/i><\/p>\n je suis un petit peu plus heu\u2026 ralenti<\/i> sceptique sur l’introduction<\/p>\n que vous avez \u00e9voqu\u00e9e et \u00e7a nous permet de parler du risque justement<\/p>\n \u00e0 propos de ce qui s’est pass\u00e9 en juin 2018 \u00e0 Hawai\\ \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 parce que le\u2026 moi j’ai beaucoup travaill\u00e9<\/p>\n hm hm \u00a0 [janvier\/\u00a0 janvier 2018 <\/i>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/i><\/p>\n sur les [questions \u00a0 \u00a0 pardon j- j-\u00a0 janvier 2018<\/p>\n <\/p>\n moi j’ai beaucoup \u00e9tudi\u00e9 les questions de fausses alertes entre guillemets et de crise hm pour savoir justement \u00e0 quel point\/ nous avons ou nous n’avons pas fr\u00f4l\u00e9 l’apocalypse est-ce qu’on a eu de la chance ou pas<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n BT anounces his partial agreement with J-P D (line 1-3, fast), then his point of disagreement, which will define the issue of the talk (l. 4-6, slow speech rate, l. 4 softning preface). The argumentative situation and BT\u00a0 argumentative role as an opponent are clearly emerged. In this context, J-PD first speech act is an argumentative correction, about the date of the reference event. This date is not really relevant to the matter of the discussion, but the correction is effective to get, at least momentarily, the upper position in the ongoing argument.<\/p>\n (2) ?<\/h2>\nR\u00e9pliques<\/i>, Finkielkraut, 23-03-2019 La question catalane <\/i>(minute 13)<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.franceculture.fr\/emissions\/repliques\/la-question-catalane<\/a><\/p>\n Pas clair<\/p>\n Correction, r\u00e9paration, rectification<\/p>\n In conversational activities, correction is defined as a specific order of discursive work that refers to replacement of a \u201cproduction error\u201d or \u201cmistake\u201d with what is \u201cnormatively\u201d correct (MacBeth 2004: 705; Jefferson 1987; Schegloff et al.,1977).\u00a0 The orientation seems to be toward the normative correctness of a correction outcome\u00a0 rather than toward the problem of common understanding (MacBeth 2004, p. 729). Repair is a different, prior order of discursive work that deals with participants\u2019 problems in mutual understanding and allows assurance of the recurrence of intersubjectivity in the conversation (Schegloff 1992). As demonstrated by MacBeth in his study of corrections in instructional\/educational activities (2004, p. 728), correction shows its relevance only in the presence of the achievement of common understanding about the trouble source, that is, that a normatively adequate remedy for a production error (mistake) is being requested.<\/p>\n Asta Cekaite (2009) Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer assistance<\/i>. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2009) 4 (3):319\u2013341, p. 3, note 2. |