Download - Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
1/27
Strategic Maneuver.Analisi argomentativa in contesti
interattivi
Francesco Arcidiacono
Universit di Neuchtel (Svizzera)
Sapienza Universit di Roma, Scuola di Dottorato , 11 ottobre 2012
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
2/27
Key terms e qualche info Argomentazione: Universit di Neuchtel
Co-responsabile progetto The development of argumentation in childrens interactionwithin ad hoc experimental and classroom contexts(+ didattica)
Interazione sociale: Universit di Losanna
Professore invitato Psychosociologie clinique I: questions gnrales
Contesto/contesti: Universit per la Formazione degli insegnanti HEP-BEJUNE, Bienne
Professore responsabile di progetti di ricerca
Coordinatore UR Eterogeneit, integrazione scolastica e relaz. pedagogica
Analisi qualitativa: Universit di Neuchtel e Mosca (MGPPU)
Co-responsabile del progetto Doing research in education through qualitative analyses of
social interaction2
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
3/27
Due premesse Interazioni sociali
(Baucal, Arcidiacono & Budjevac, 2011)
Explanatory perspective
Social interaction is studied for
instrumental reasons. It is not an
object of study per se, it is ratherStudied in order to explain something
that is outside of interaction
(e.g. cognitive ability,
self related characteristics)
Analytic perspective
Social interaction is the main object
of research interest and it is analyzed
in details in order to describe its diverse patterns and dynamics3
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
4/27
Perch largomentazione?
Scambio ragionevole, co-costruzione di
decisioni
Qualitdei processi di socializzazione
Conoscenza e capacit di interazione sociale
4
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
5/27
Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE5
5
Activit rationnelle, verbale et sociale dont lobjectif est deconvaincre un esprit critique raisonnable de lacceptabilit dunpoint de vue en avanant une constellation de propositions
justifiant ou rfutant la proposition exprime par le point de vue
(van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004)
Argumentation is considered as a mode of discourse in which theinvolved interlocutors are committed to reasonableness(Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2009)
Largomentazione: pluralit di definizioni.
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
6/27
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
7/27Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE
Argomentazione e ragione
7
Ragione= perch come giustificazione
perch pensiamo che une cose dovrebbe essereaffermata?
Ragione= fondamento: la ragione per la quale una tesi sostenuta
Ragione= perch consideriamo giusto il fatto di sostenere una certa
opinione (giudizio, tesi,...)
Il ragionamentonellargomentazione rappresenta una componentefondamentale dellimpegno (engagement) critico per:
compendere, spiegare, chiarire un dubbiodecidere, prendere posizione, deliberare, consigliareaccrescere la conoscenza, fondare unopinionepersuadere
valutare una proposta, una decisione, un comportamento
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
8/27Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE
8
Prospettiva psicosociale dellargomentazione
8
Argomentazione = pratica discorsiva
- Situazioni in cui il senso ambiguo (incerto)
- Decisione da prendere, soluzione da trovare
Argomentare per apprendere
Apprendere a argomentare
1) Dal punto di vista comunicativoDiscorso argomentativo forma (marcatori linguistici)
= dimensione comunicativa particolare(prendere posizione su qcosa)
2) Dal punto di vista cognitivoAbilit e competenze, capacit di decentrarsi
3) Dal punto di vista educativoCo-elaborazione di nuove conoscenze
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
9/279
Soggetto
Oggetto
Strumento
Altro
Prospettiva socio-culturale:- interazioni sociali
- mediazioni simboliche (linguaggio, tecnologie, etc.)
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
10/27
Qualche modello di analisi
Critical Discussion
(van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004)
Argumentum Model of Topic
(Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2009)
10
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
11/27
a) The Model of Critical Discussion
it helps to identify argumentative moves (heuristic function), to
evaluate their contribution to the resolution of the difference ofopinion (critical function), and to reconstruct the analytical
overview in terms of a critical discussion (analytic function)
4 ideal stages:
- confrontation stage: the protagonist advances his standpointand meets with the antagonists doubts
- opening stage: parties have to agree on some starting
point (common ground)
- argumentation stage: arguments are put forth for supporting
or destroying the standpoint- concluding stage: it is possible for parties to reasonably
resolve the differences of opinions
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
12/27
Different types of confrontation
- single dispute: only one proposition is at issue
- multiple dispute: two or more propositions are questioned- non-mixed dispute: only one standpoint with respect to aproposition is questioned
- mixed dispute: two opposite standpoints regarding the sameproposition are questioned
van Eemeren & Houtlosser (1999), van Eemeren (2010)
notion of strategic maneuvering:
allows to account for the arguers personal desire to win the
cause (rhetorical aim) and for its dialectical counterpart (dialecticalaim), which is identified with the interlocutors commitment to
maintain a standard of reasonableness
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
13/27
13
b) The Argumentum Model of Topics
The AMT aims at systematically reconstructing the inferential configuration ofarguments, underlying the connection between a standpoint and the argument(s)
in its support.The general principle underlying the reconstruction of the inferential
configuration of an argumentative move is that of finding those implicit premises
that are necessary in order for the argumentative move to be valid
Two components- Topical: inferential connection activated by the argument, corresponding to theabstract reasoning that justifies the passage from the premises (arguments) to
the conclusion (standpoint). The inferential connection underlying the argument
is named with the traditional term maxim. Maxims are inferential connectionsgenerated by a certain semantic ontological domain named locus
- Endoxical: implicit or explicit material premises shared by the discussants that,combined with the topical component, ground the standpoint. These premisesinclude endoxa, i.e. general principles, values, and assumptions that typicallybelong to the specific context, and data, basically coinciding with punctualinformation and facts regarding the specific situation at hand and usually
representing the part of the argument that is made explicit in the text
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
14/27
14
Texte
Texte
Texte
Texte
Texte
Prmisse Mineure
(datum)
Endoxon
Prmisse Mineure
Maxime
Conclusion finale
Premire conclus ion
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
15/27
La struttura degli argomenti
Ce beurre est naturel.
Il est fait avec le lait frais des Alpes.
Thse
Il est fait avec le lait frais des Alpes
ce beurre est naturel
Argomento:
http://www.pagetronic.com/download/jpg/beurre-2.jpg -
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
16/27
16
Si la qualit du produit est
bonne, le produit est bon
Le lait frais des Alpes est
naturel
Le lait frais des Alpes est la
cause matrielle de ce beurre
La cause matrielle de ce
beurre est naturelle
Ce beurre est naturel
Prmisse Mineure
Endoxon
Prmisse Mineure
Maxime
Conclusion finale
Premire conclusion
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
17/27
Esempi empirici
Contesti diversi, attivit diverse:
- Interazioni tra bambini (situazione quasi-sperimentale)
- Interazioni in famiglia (cene)
17
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
18/27Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE18
18
Rivisitazione delle
prove di conservazione
dei liquidi
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
19/27
Argumentative Model of Topic
Bigger the container,
bigger the amount of
liquid
The shape of a
container indicates itsvolume
Container A is bigger
than container C
Dimensions of container A are
bigger than dimensions of
container C
Minor premise
(Datum)
Endoxon
Minor premise
Maxime
Final conclusion
First conclusion
Container A cancontain
more liquid than C
Esempio: risposta di non conservazione
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
20/27
20
Conservation des quantits de liquide
(Perret-Clermont, 1979)
(Post-test, sujet non-conservant)
Fa: galise les niveaux en A et A
Exp: verse A en C et maintenant?
Fa: cest pas la mme chose parce que ce verre (C) est plus large
Exp: alors il y a plus ou moins?
Fa: moins dans celui-ci (C)
Exp: quest-ce que tu crois?
Fa: avant, dans A, ctait la mme chose, mais maintenant cest plus
large Exp: alors?
Fa: ici (C) cest plus petit, l (A) cest plus grand
Exp: il y a la mme chose ou plus dans un verre?
Fa: avant ctait gal. Maintenant il y en a moins dans celui-ci (C) .
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
21/27
Si un rcipient a des dimensions
majeures, il peutcontenir un
contenu majeur
La forme physique dun
rcipient indique le volume
(selon sa largueur,
hauteur)
Le verre A est plus
grand (plus haut) duverre C
Ce verre (A) a des dimensions
majeures du verre C
Prmisse mineure
(Datum)
Endoxon
Prmisse mineure
Maxime
Conclusion finale
Premire
conclusion
Ce rcipient peutcontenir
plus de sirop du verre C
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
22/27
22
Cf. Bova & Arcidiacono (2012)
Excerpt: Family LUG, dinner 3; participants: MOM (mother, age: 32); DAD (father,
age: 34); MAT (child 1, Matteo, age: 9); LEO (child 2, Leonardo, age: 5)
1 *LEO: mamma:: guarda! *LEO: guarda cosa sto facendo con il limone
*LEO: sto cancellando
*LEO: sto cancellando questo colore
%sit: MAM prende dei limoni e si china di fronte a LEO di modo che il suo
viso risulti all'altezza di quello di LEO
%sit: MAM posa alcuni limoni sul tavolo2 *LEO: dai dammelo
3 *MOM: eh?
4 *LEO: posso avere questo limone?
5 *MOM: no:: no:: no:: no::
6 *LEO: perch no?
7 *MOM: perch no? perchLeonardo, mamma ha bisogno
dei limoni
8 *LEO: perch mamma?
9 *MOM: perch, Leonardo, tuo pap vuole mangiare una
buona insalataoggi [: con un tono di voce basso e dolce]
10 *LEO: ah:: va bene mamma
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
23/27
23
Coarguers: Mother and Leonardo
Issue: Can the child have the lemons?
Type of difference of opinion: Single Mixed
Mothers Standpoint (a): You cant have the lemons
Childs Standpoint (b): I want the lemons
Mothers Argument (a1): Mom needs the lemons
Mothers Argument (a2): Dad wants to eat a good salad today
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
24/27
24
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
25/27
25
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
26/27
Piste, spunti, usi analitici
Epistemology Analytic view on social exchanges
Talk-in-interaction = way to study complexity and diversity of social interactions
Development / Education
Complexity of settings Different meanings, goals, emotions,
Social nature of acgumentative activities
Research Implications = social interactions as powerful modes of
thinking Fruitful combination of conversational and discursive methods, argumentative
models and typologies in order to implement learning designs
26
-
7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver
27/27
Bibliografia
27
Baucal, A., Arcidiacono, F., & Budjevac, N. (Eds.) (2011) Studying interaction in difefrent
contexts: A qualitative view. Belgrade: Institute of Psychology.
Bova, A., Arcidiacono, F. (2012). Invoking the authority of feelings as a strategic maneuver in
family mealtime conversations.Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology.
Eemeren van, F.H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Eemeren van, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004).A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: ThePragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren van, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse.
Discourse Studies, 1(4), 479-497.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1979). La construction de l'intelligence dans l'interaction sociale.Berne:
Peter Lang.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation as an object of interest and as a
social and cultural resource. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.),
Argumentation and Education. Theoretical Foundations and Practices(pp. 9-66). New York:
Springer.