This paper discusses the definition of argumentation as a means for persuading an audience on the acceptability of a thesis. It is argued that persuasion is a goal that relates more to the communicative situation, the type of interaction or the type of discourse, rather than to the argumentative nature of it. Departing from the analysis of a short conversational sequence between people who agree on an issue and nevertheless argue, I suggest that a definition of argumentation in terms of (...) persuasion fails to account for what people are actually doing in these situations. I propose instead that several functions may be assigned to argumentation when considering the context in which it is produced: a cognitive function (which helps participants to elaborate a position on the discussed issue), and an identifying function (which enables them to portray themselves through the expression and the justification of their opinion). In the case analyzed here, a third function to which the argumentative activity contributes can also be identified, namely the enhancing of the emotional tonality of the relationship between the participants. While it becomes clear from the discussion of this argumentative sequence that the participants do not seek to persuade each other or some third party, it is not suggested that argumentation never aims at persuading an audience, but rather that persuasion cannot be considered as a defining feature of argumentation. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus conference and public hearing. While both methods are used in order to involve the public in decision making about science and technology policy, they differ in a number of aspects. Consensus conference seeks the active participation of a selected group of citizens who are expected to elaborate cooperatively a text of recommendations. Public hearing seeks to inform the public and to collect as many reactions by it as possible. (...) In our analysis, we consider the characteristics of these two methods described in the social and political sciences literature as institutional constraints that can play a role in the production of argumentative discourse. We focus our study on the discourse produced in two concrete instances of the application of these participatory methods on the deliberation over the development of nanotechnology in France. More specifically, we study the expression of counter discourse and seek to describe how the participants in the two deliberation processes end up managing the institutional constraints in order to have their criticisms expressed. In this way, we propose a bottom-up approach to the theorization of the role that institutional context plays in the practice of argumentation, and discuss the descriptive adequacy of existing definitions of the deliberative genre within argumentation studies. (shrink)

S'inscrivant dans une perspective d'analyse interactionnelle des discours argumentatifs, l'étude comparée des forums interner comme dispositifs de discussion argumentative et du courrier des lecteurs d'un quotidien se développe selon trois axes: la dimension dialogale, la mise en scène de soi et les procédés argumentatifs. Elle montre que ces deux dispositifs constituent des espaces d'expression politique citoyenne, mais que seul le forum peut permettre une discussion argumentative horizontale entre citoyens.As part of an interactional perspective of discourse analysis argumentative, comparative study of (...) forums as intern devices argumentative discussion and letters to the editor of a newspaper develops along three axes: the dialogical dimension, the staging of self and argumentative processes. It shows that these two devices are spaces of citizen political expression, but only the forum can provide a horizontal argumentative discussion among citizens. (shrink)

Scientific knowledge is no longer transmitted solely through a one-way channel of communication from scientific communities to `lay' readers through the knowledge transmission `chain'. Communication between the two communities has now been extended into media and everyday social discourse where it crops up in news debates about issues such as public health and food safety. In this process, scientific academic discourse has lost much of its original form. This article examines part of the current research at the Centre de recherche (...) sur les discours ordinaires et spécialisés. It provides evidence of new discursive forms adopted by science in media and social discourse, such as the emergence of enunciative standpoints, the redefinition of the role of the journalist as mediator between science and the general public, the use of specific forms of intertextuality and the interweaving of scientific elements in general social discussions. This research on new data implies renewed definitions of certain concepts used in linguistic descriptions: discursive meaning and signification, interdiscursive memory bank, etc. These recent forms of discourse have brought about a change in the status of science so that science has now become an object of debate in the public arena — a sign of its crucial social role. (shrink)

Many French-speaking approaches to argumentation are deeply rooted in a linguistic background. Hence, they “naturally” tend to adopt a descriptive stance on argumentation. This is why the issue of “the virtues of argumentation”—and, specifically, the question of what makes an argument virtuous—is not central to them. The argumentative norms issue nevertheless can-not be discarded, as it obviously is crucial to arguers themselves: the latter often behave as if they were invested with some kind of argumentative policing duty when involved in (...) dissensual exchanges. We describe several researches developing a descriptive approach to such ordinary argumentative policing: we claim that the virtues of argumentation may be an issue even for an amoral analyst. We will connect this issue with linguistic remarks on the lexicon of refutation in English and in French. (shrink)