Archives de catégorie : Non classé

Publicações portuguesas

Publié le par

PUBLICATIONS EN PORTUGAIS

 

 

En préparation, traduction du

 Dictionnaire de l’argumentation
Coordonnée par Rubens Damasceno Morais et Eduardo Lopes Piris

 

LIVRES TRADUITS

 2008  A Argumentação: História, teoria, perspectivas.
Trad. de Marcos Marcionilo 
São Paulo, Parabola.
Trad. de L’argumentation – Histoire, théories, perspectives Paris : PUF, Que sais-je?

 

Christian Plantin, 2010  A argumentação.
Traduction de Rui A. Grácio et M. Matozzi. Grácio Editor, Coimbra, 2010.
Trad. de L’Argumentation. Paris, Le Seuil, 1995

 

LIVRE CO-ÉDITÉ

2009.Sousa do Nascimento Silvania, Plantin Christian (orgs)
Argumentação e ensino de ciências.
Curitiba : Editora CRV.

 

ARTICLES

2021 — Christian Plantin, Rubens Damasceno Morais
O dicionário como ferramenta para o ensino de argumentação.
Entrepalavras, Fortaleza, v. 11, n. esp., p. 1-20, 2021. DOI: 10.22168/2237-6321-2102.

 

ARTICLES TRADUITS

2011 – Débora Raquel Hettwer Massmann, Christian Plantin
O estudo da argumentação em uma perspectiva dialogal — Entrevista com Christian Plantin
Entremeios: revista de estudos do discurso. v.2, n.1. halshs-00989790

 

2010 As Razões das emoçôes
In Mendes Emilia., Machado Ida Lucia., (org.) As Emoções no discurso, Vol. II. Campinas Mercado de Letras. 57-80 – 9788575911266. halshs-00854671

 

2009 Deixem dizer: A norma do discurso de um está nem discuro do outro
Comunicação e Sociedade, 16. 145-161.
[Traduction de Chr. Plantin 2009 “Normalité du dissensus”. Conférence d’ouverture du colloque La Rhétorique de la Critique dans le discours universitaires. Conflits, polémiques et controverses, Organisé par M. Zaleska, Univeersité de Varsovie.] halshs-00989765

 

2009 A Argumentação biface.
Muniz Proença Lara G., Machado I. L., Emediato W. Análises do discurso hoje, Vol. 2, Lucerna, pp.14-26, 2009. 〈halshs-00393743〉

 

2008 A validação de argumentos em sala de aula: um exemplo a partir da formação inicial de professores de física 
S. Sousa do Nascimento, Chr. Plantin, R. Drumond Vieira 
Investigações em Ensino de Ciência s 13, 2. 143-168 http://www.if.ufrgs.br/ienci/?go=artigos&idEdicao=34 
halshs-00373175

 

2004 Ad passiones – Sur les affects de l’argumentation
In Prácticas de Investigação em Análise Linguística do Discurso , M A. Marques, M. A. Pereira, R. Ramos, I. Ermida (eds), Braga, Universidade do Minho. 163-179

 

2002 Ad quietem , o el rechazo del debate
In I. L. Machado & al (eds) Actes du II Simpósio Internacional sobre Análise do Discurso, Discurso, Ação e Sociedade . UFMG (Université Fédérale du Minas Gerais), Belo Horizonte. 351-387

Publications, In English

Publié le par

PUBLICATIONS
ON EMOTIONS IN TEXTS AND INTERACTIONS
IN ENGLISH

Christian Plantin, 2019, Tense Arguments. Questions, Exclamations,  Emotions. Informal Logic, 39, 2019, p. 347–371

— Emotions in Speech and Interactions— A practical approach
Conférence, Belo Horizonte (TO BE PUBLISHED)

—2015 Emotion and Affect.
In Tracy, Karen, Ilie, Cornelia & Sandel, Todd (eds.) (2015). The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interactio n. Boston: John Wiley & Sons.

— 2007. Moving demonstrations
In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, B Garssens (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation . Amsterdam, SICSAT. 1065-1071

— 2004. On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation
In E. Weigand (ed.) Emotions in Dialogic Interactions. 
Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 265-276

— 2000 Les émotions dans les interactions
Ch. Plantin, M. Doury & V. Traverso (éds).
Lyon : PUL (ouvrage avec cédérom)

— 1999 Arguing emotions
In van Eemeren F. & al., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation , 1998. 631-638.

 

PUBLICATIONS
ON ARGUMENTATION
IN ENGLISH

Christian Plantin,
 2018. Dictionary of Argumentation.  An Introduction to Argumentation Studies.
With a Preface by J. Anthony Blair. London, College Publications.

Plantin Chr. (ed), 2021, Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures.
Argumentation 35 (1):1-7

2012

— [2012b] “Persuasion or Alignment?”
Argumentation 26, I, 83-97

2009

Plantin Chr. [2009a] “ A place for figures of speech in argumentation theory”
Argumentation 23, 3. 325-337 

2007b Moving demonstrations
In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, B Garssens (eds) Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation . Amsterdam, SICSAT. 1065-1071

2007c = 2002c Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis
In Van Dijk, T. A. 2007 (ed). Discourse Studies , Vol. IV. London, Sage, “Benchmark in Discourse Studies”. 277-301
[Republication de 2002c Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis, Discourse studies ] 

2006b On casting doubt: The dialectical aspect of normative rules in argumentation
In Houtlosser P. & A. van Rees (eds) Considering pragma-dialectics . Mahwah, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum. 245-256

2006c The Muslim Concept(s) of Argument : a Comparative Memo
In Eemeren (F. van) Hazen M., Houtlosser P. Williams D. (eds) Contemporary Perspectives on Argumentation . Amsterdam, SicSat. 151-165

2004b On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation
In E. Weigand (ed.) Emotions in Dialogic Interactions. 
Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 265-276

2002c Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis: The French Situation and Global perspectives 
Discourse studies 4, 3.343-368.
[Republié en 2007 in Van Dijk, T. A. 2007 (ed). Discourse Studies, Vol. IV, Chap. 57. “Benchmark in Discourse Studies” Series ] 

1999e Arguing emotions
In van Eemeren F. & al., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation , 1998. 631-638.

1996b Collaborateur de l’ouvrage sous la direction de F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, F. S. Henkemans ; autres collaborateurs : J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, D. N. Walton, C. A. Willard, J. Woods , D. Zarefsky. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory – A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , Mahwah, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum.

1995 

1995a Argumentative situation : Ordinary language and common argument
In van Eemeren F. & al ., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation , Vol. 1, Perspectives and Approaches . 412-427.

Claire Polo, Kristine Lund, Christian Plantin, Gerald P. Niccolai. Group Emotions: The Social and Cognitive Functions of Emotions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2016, 11 (2), pp.123-156. 〈http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11412-016-9232-8?view=classic〉. 〈halshs-01381014〉

Christian Plantin. Argumentation as an Intellectual Tool in the Knowledge Society. In Maria Zaleska, Ursula Okulska (eds). Rhetoric, Discourse and Knowledge, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2016, Collection Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 9783631698761. 〈10.3726/978-3-653-05993-9〉. 〈https://www.peterlang.com/view/9783631698761/xhtml/chapter08.xhtml〉. 〈halshs-01513022〉

2015

Article dans une revue

Christian Plantin. Review of “ J. Anthony Blair Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair. Introduction by Christopher W. Tindale”. Argumentation, Springer Verlag, 2015. 〈halshs-01353701〉
Communication dans un congrès Gerald P. Niccolai, Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kris Lund. Hybridization of knowledge sets in middle-school students peer-group discourse during a scientific café on drinking water. Chemical Congress of Pacific Basin Societies (Pacifichem), Dec 2015, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. 〈halshs-01312730〉
Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai. Group Emotions at Reasoning Together: a Model. international conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Aug 2015, Helsinki, Finland. 〈halshs-01352006〉
Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai. Words to Reason and Argue about Drinking Water Management: Comparing Debates from Mexican, US and French Schools. 1st European Conference on Argumentation, 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. London: College Publications, II, pp.821-838, 2016, Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation. 〈halshs-01381015〉
Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai. Comparing Words to Debate about Drinking Water: Textometrics for Argumentation Studies. D. Mohammed; M. Lewiński. 1st European Conference on Argumentation Argumentation and Reasoned Action , 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. London: College Publications, 2, pp.821-838, Argumentation and Reasoned Action Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. 〈halshs-01335866〉
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01335866/file/ECA15RP_PoloPlantinLundNiccolai_PARTAGEABLE.pdf

Chapitre d’ouvrage

Christian Plantin. Emotion and Affect. In Tracy, Karen, Ilie, Cornelia & Sandel, Todd (eds.). The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, Boston: John Wiley & Sons, 2015, 9781118611463. 〈halshs-01502969〉

Poster

Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, Gerald P. Niccolai. Group Emotions in Argumentation: Specifying Relations Between Social and Cognitive Functions. 16th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) in the paper session Research Methodology. Towards a Reflective Society: Synergies Between Learning, Teaching and Research, Aug 2015, Limassol, Cyprus. 〈halshs-01352909〉
Claire Polo, Kristine Lund, Christian Plantin, Gerald P. Niccolai. The Role of Emotions in Argumentation in Small Groups: Case Studies of Students’ Debates About Drinking Water Management. International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Jun 2014, Boulder, Colorado, United States. Atelier sur les dimensions sociales, affectives et de motivation de l’apprentissage à travers l’interaction sociale. 〈halshs-01352079〉

Communication dans un congrès

Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund, Gerald Niccolai. Student-Student Debates during Scientific Cafés on Drinking Water: Group Dynamics, « Spontaneous » Argumentative Skills, and the Argumentative Use of Emotions. Rummel, N., Kapur, M., Nathan, M., & Puntambekar, S. 10th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Jun 2013, Madison, WI, United States. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 2, pp.474, 2013. 〈halshs-00986829〉
Christian Plantin. A place for figures of speech in argumentation theory. Argumentation, Springer Verlag, 2009, 23 (3), pp.325-337. 〈halshs-00989761〉
2007. Argumentation Studies and Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies, Vol. IV, Sage, “Benchmark in Discourse Studies”, pp.277-301, . 〈halshs-00373302〉
2006. Moving demonstrations. F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, B. Garssens. The 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Jun 2006, Amsterdam, Netherlands. SicSat, pp.1065-1071, 2007. 〈halshs-00373282〉
2006 Christian Plantin. On casting doubt: The dialectical aspect of normative rules in argumentation. Houtlosser P. & A. van Rees. Considering pragma-dialectics, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.245-256, 2006. 〈halshs-00373277〉
2006 Christian Plantin. The Muslim Concept(s) of Argument : a Comparative Memo. (F. van) Eemeren, M. Hazen, P. Houtlosser, D. Williams. Contemporary Perspectives on Argumentation, SicSat, Amsterdam, pp.151-165, 2006. 〈halshs-00373281〉

– 2002 Argumentation studies and discourse analysis : the French situation and global perspectives. Discourse Studies, SAGE Publications, 2002, Vol. 4 (N° 3), pp.343- 368. 〈10.1177/14614456020040030501〉. 〈halshs-00425276〉

Communication

Christian Plantin. The situation of argumentation studies in France : a new legitimacy. Eemeren, Franz H. van;Snoeck Henkemans, Arnolda Francisca;Blair, J. Anthony;Willard, Charles Arthur;. 5th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Jun 2002, Amsterdam, Netherlands. SICSAT, pp.831- 837, 2003. 〈halshs-00425284〉

Publications, en español

Publié le par

 

 PUBLICACIONES EN ESPAÑOL

 

LIBRO (en collaboración)

Plantin Chr., Muñoz, Nora 2011. El Hacer argumentativo Biblos, Buenos Aires. MÁS…

 

LIBROS TRADUCIDOS

2021 Diccionario de la argumentación
Con un prólogo de Roberto Marafioti. UNM Editorial, Buenos Aires.

2014. Las buenas razones de las emociones.
Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento / UNM Editora: Moreno, Buenos Aires.

2012 La argumentación. Historia, teorías, perspectivas.
Trad. de N. I. Muñoz, prólogo de R. Marafioti. Buenos Aires, Biblos, “Ciencias del lenguaje”. 114 p.  [Trad. de L’argumentation: Histoire, Théories, Perspectives. Paris : PUF 2005]

— 1998, La argumentación
Barcelona, Ariel. [Trad. de L’argumentationParis : Le Seuil, 1995]

 

NÚMEROS ESPECIALES DE REVISTA (coordinación)

Plantin Chr., Padilla, Constanza (eds) 2012 Prácticas argumentativas a través de las disciplinas
RILL – Revista de Investigaciones Lingüisticas y Literarias,
Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina.

Plantin Chr., 1999. La argumentación 
(éditeur)
Escritos Puebla : Université de Puebla, Mexique.

 

ARTÍCULOS

2018 Lo que la lengua cuenta de sus emociones
En: Bein, Roberto; Bonnin, Juan Eduardo; di Stefano, Mariana; Lauria, Daniela; Pereira, María Cecilia (eds) Homenaje a Elvira Arnoux Estudios de análisis del discurso, glotopolítica y pedagogía de la lectura y la escritura, vol. VI. Análisis del discurso. Buenos Aires, UBA.

 

2016 De polemistas a polemizadores.
En: Montero, A. S. (compiladora) El análisis del discurso polémico. Disputas, querellas y controversias  Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros, pp. 67-81. (Trad. de Plantin, 2003). 

 

2014 Lengua, argumentación y aprendizajes escolares
TED —  Tecné, episteme y didaxis, 36. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Bogotá, 95-114. revistas.pedagogica.edu.co/index.php/TED/article/view/2914/2635

 

2012 Normalidad del desacuerdo
Praxis filosófica , Nueva serie, 35. 283-301. Traducción y notas de Chr. Plantin 2009 “Normalité du dissensus” de D. M. Patiño Rojas y J. A. Giraldo.

 

2011 Warley J., Plantin Chr.  Pedagogía y teoría,de la argumentación – Entrevista a Christian Plantin
Anclajes. XV.2, nov. 2011. 103-112.

 

2010 No se trata de convencer, sino de convivir : L’ère post-persuasion
Rétor 1, 1. 59-83.

 

2010 Gutiérrez, S. Plantin Chr. Argumentar por medio de las emociones: la ‘campaña del miedo’ del 2006
Versión. Estudios de Comunicación y Política , 24. 41-69.

 

2009 Argumentar y manipular para probar
Texte correspondant à la conférence données à Bogotá, Colombie, Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, en 2008

 

2009 Significar la propia emoción (e irse sin pagar)
Páginas de Guarda. 8, 11-28.
(ver también: Christian Plantin, 2014.  Estudio V: Significar la propia emoción
En Las Buenas razones de las emociones. Buenos Aires, UNM Editora. P. 273-284)

 

2009 Chr. Plantin Chr. Gutiérrez, S. La construcción política del miedo.
Shiro M., Bentivoglio P., de Erlich F. (eds) Haciendo Discurso. Homenaje a Adriana Bolivar. 
 Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela. 491-509.

 

2008 Un modèle dialogal de l’argumentation.
Flor M a Bango de la Campa, Antonio Niembro Prieto, Emma Álvarez Prendes (eds), 2008. Intertexto y polifonía. Estudios en Homenaje a M a Aurora Aragón, Tomo II.Oviedo, Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo, 737-754

2008 El argumento del paralogismo.
In R. Marafioti et Chr. Santibañez (eds) De las falacias – Argumentación y Comunicación. Buenos Aires, Biblos, 2008. 115-133. Traduction en espagnol de “L’argument du paralogisme”, Hermès, 15-16. 241-258, 1995.

 

2007 Compte-rendu de A. Bolivar (ed.) Discurso y democracia en Venezuela .
Discurso y sociedad vol. 4 (3). In Mots. Les langages du politique . 107-112.

 

2003 Pensar el debate
Signos 37 (55), Valparaiso, Chili : Universidad Católica de Valparaiso. 121-129

 

2001 L’argumentation entre discours et interaction
In Lengua, discurso, texto , Madrid, Visor Libros. 71-92

 

1999 La interaccion argumentativa
Escritos 17/18. 23-49

Éliminer, maintenir, renforcer les désaccords

Publié le par
Résumé : Le traitement adéquat de la différence d’opinion est une question disputée en théorie de l’argumentation, où la tendance dominante est orientée vers la réduction du désaccord. Les § 1 à 3 récapitulent les éléments qui fondent cette vision : principe de coopération, préférence pour l’accord, suite préférée, politesse linguistique (§1). théories orientées vers la réduction du dissensus, par la persuasion rhétorique (§2) ou par l’élimination dialectique (§3). Polémique et controverse ne peuvent dès lors être vues que comme des fallacies ou des péchés de langue, où se manifestent l’échec et le malheur de l’argumentation, incitant à substituer aux règles de discussion des règles de raisonnement, ad directionem ingenii (§4).
En référence au statut interactionnel de l’argumentation (§5) les §6 et §7 proposent une vision de l’argumentation agnostique du point de vue des orientations vers l’accord ou le désaccord. On appellera fallacie du consensus la tendance à ériger en absolu l’exigence de consensus. A la suite de Hamblin, on retirera au « logicien » l’arbitrage des disputes, pour le remettre là où il a toujours été de fait, entre les mains des disputants. Cette perspective émique sur les règles de la controverse conduit à s’intéresser en priorité aux règles qui fonctionnent effectivement sur les sites argumentatifs les plus variés (§8). La conclusion (§9) porte sur la banalité du désaccord radical.
Mots clés :  Argumentation, interactions, désaccord, évaluation, règles du débat
Abstract : Eliminating, maintaining, strengthening differences of opinion
Mainstream argumentation theories are oriented towards the elimination of disagreement. §1 sums up three principles building up consensus in conversation: cooperation principle, preference for agreement in second turns in conversation, linguistic politeness. Rhetorical approaches to argument aims at eliminating dissensus (doubt of the audience and counter-discourse of the other orator) through persuading the audience (§2). Dialectical approaches aims at the same result through the elimination one of the two conflicting point of views (§3). As a result, maintaining dissensus and controversies is dubbed as irrational; dissensus is stigmatized as fallacious or irrational, sinful in the language of the medieval theory of the “sins of the tongue” (§4 and 5).
Starting from the an interactional, and more generally dialogical approach to argument, paragraphs 6 and 7 outline some reasons to remain agnostic about the question of consensus and dissensus. The (argumentative) question if a difference of opinion should be eliminated or promoted is entirely open; the will to eliminate dissensus as an aberration on a priori grounds, will be dubbed “the fallacy of consensus”. Following Hamblin for whom the logician is, “at best a trained advocate” (1970, p. 244-245) — and not the “terminator” of all and any argument, we argue first that evaluation is one of the participants’ task, and second that argumentation scholars should devote more attention to specific systems or rules as they are defined and implemented on specific settings. “Deep” and persisting disagreement is not an existential tragedy for the arguers but a basic characteristic of their condition.
Key words  Argumentation, interaction, disagreement, evaluation, rules of debate

eliminer-maintenir-renforcer-les-desaccords

Argumentation in the Knowledge Society

Publié le par
Abstract : Knowledge society can be characterized as a society where the classical instruments of rhetoric, doxa-based substantial knowledge and topical inference rules, are constantly thwarted by scientific knowledge, calculus and method. In such a context, argument cannot be construed as antagonistic to demonstration and restricted to a purely linguistic inference or to as an “artistic” rhetorical prowess.
A strong research community nowadays focuses on argumentation as a tool for knowledge acquisition and knowledge-based social decision making (ex: “Bees exposed to high levels of pesticides suspected in colony collapse”). A concept of argument is needed which could be used to build bridge between the « two cultures”. To take a step in that direction, the form and substance of the argumentative dialog have to be reconsidered. First, the kind of dialogue appropriate to knowledge building is not formal dialog but substantial dialog, the “default-reasoning dialog”; Toulmin’s scheme can be read as such a reasoning dialog. Second, a core set of « knowledge-based » arguments (arguments connecting objects) can be delimited. This may suggest that we are not jailed in a maybe comfortable but finally sterile opposition between “those who prove” and “those who (at their best) argue”.
Key words : argumentation, rhetoric, proof, demonstration, socio-scientific issues, science education, debate

argumentation-in-the-knowledge-society

 

- ÉDITER -