In a theoretical first part we attempt to articulate the notions of concession, refutation and negation for monological linguistic activity, on the basis among other things of Mœschler's work on conversation. We distinguish the illocutionary act of refutation and the complex intervention of refutation, concession-invention, concession-repetition and concession-quotation. In a second part we analyze the place and role of (descriptive) negation in counter-argumentative texts written by 8- to 12-year-old pupils and adults in an artificial situation. We consider phenomena observed by (...) certain “contradictory” properties of negation in the context of the task in question: namely potential help in generating content by mechanisms of the argumentative law of negation extended to predicates, negation takes the risk polyphonically of argumentative drift. This may explain the fact that it is so rare. (shrink)

The main purpose of this paper is to account for the varying analysis and formalisations of a same advertisement text, “Mir Rose”, by Jean Michel Adam. First, we draw the methodological frame of this psycholinguistic approach of composing and understanding-memorizing texts. We refer to the notions of prototypical textual schema, semantic macrostructure and superstructure. Then we point out the differences between argumentative text and argumentative discourse. Last, we try to explain why it has been possible for Adam to analyse and (...) formalise the same text first as a narrative one and a few years later as an argumentative one. We suggest that his narrative approach is not specific and textual “narrative” means here “temporal-causative sequence” or “problem solving”, i.e., deeper and more general psychological devices than those involved in processing narrative text per se. From Toulmin and van Dijk approaches of argumentation, we propose our own analysis and formalisation of “Mir Rose”, the psychological validity or plausibility of which should be tested in experimental tasks of reading-memorising. (shrink)

120 students in grades 3 to 7 heard an argumentative text and were immediately submitted to a free recall task. The results show that before grade 7, the subjects did not view the text as argumentative. The discussion centers on the relevancy of a prototypical argumentative schema in accounting for these findings.

Une premiére partie est consacrée à la présentation du cadre dans lequel nous menons nos travaux sur l'argumentation écrite. Nous proposons un certain nombre de distinctions basiques entre ‘text’ et ‘discours’ argumentatif. Nous déclinons ce que nous entendons par ‘argument’. Nous esquissons quelques dimensions d'un modéle psycholinguistique du traitement de l'argumentation écrie (composition, compréhension). Dans une seconde partie, nous apportons quelques données empiriques en relation à la théorie linguistique de l'ascriptivisme soutenue par Ducrot et Anscombre1.