Strategic Maneuver.

Analisi argomentativa in contesti

interattivi
Francesco Arcidiacono
Universit di Neuchtel (Svizzera)
francesco.arcidiacono@unine.ch

Sapienza Universit di Roma, Scuola di Dottorato , 11 ottobre 2012

Key terms e qualche info

Argomentazione: Universit di Neuchtel

Co-responsabile progetto The development of argumentation in childrens interaction
within 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 HEPBEJUNE, 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 interaction
2

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 rather
Studied 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 dynamics

Perch largomentazione?

Scambio ragionevole, co-costruzione di

decisioni
Qualit

dei processi di socializzazione

Conoscenza e capacit di interazione sociale

Largomentazione: pluralit di definizioni.

Activit rationnelle, verbale et sociale dont lobjectif est de
convaincre un esprit critique raisonnable de lacceptabilit dun
point 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 the

involved interlocutors are committed to reasonableness
(Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2009)

Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE

Argomentazione e ragione
Ragione = perch come giustificazione
perch pensiamo che une cose dovrebbe essere
affermata?
Ragione = fondamento: la ragione per la quale una tesi sostenuta
Ragione = perch consideriamo giusto il fatto di sostenere una certa
opinione (giudizio, tesi,...)
Il ragionamento nellargomentazione rappresenta una componente
fondamentale dellimpegno (engagement) critico per:
compendere, spiegare, chiarire un dubbio
decidere, prendere posizione, deliberare, consigliare
accrescere la conoscenza, fondare unopinione
persuadere
valutare una proposta, una decisione, un comportamento
Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE

Prospettiva psicosociale dellargomentazione

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 comunicativo

Discorso argomentativo forma (marcatori linguistici)
= dimensione comunicativa particolare
(prendere posizione su qcosa)
2) Dal punto di vista cognitivo
Abilit e competenze, capacit di decentrarsi
3) Dal punto di vista educativo
Co-elaborazione di nuove conoscenze
Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE

Soggetto

Strumento

Altro

Oggetto

Prospettiva socio-culturale:
- interazioni sociali
- mediazioni simboliche (linguaggio, tecnologie, etc.)
9

Qualche modello di analisi

Critical Discussion
(van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004)

Argumentum Model of Topic

(Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2009)

10

a) The Model of Critical Discussion

it helps to identify argumentative moves (heuristic function),
evaluate their contribution to the resolution of the
difference of
opinion (critical function), and to reconstruct the
analytical
overview in terms of a critical discussion (analytic
function)

to

4 ideal stages:
- confrontation stage: the protagonist advances his
standpoint
and 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

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 a
proposition is questioned
- mixed dispute: two opposite standpoints regarding the same
proposition 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 (dialectical
aim), which is identified with the
interlocutors commitment to
maintain a standard of
reasonableness

b) The Argumentum Model of Topics

The AMT aims at systematically reconstructing the inferential configuration of
arguments, 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 the
abstract 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 connections
generated 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 premises
include endoxa, i.e. general principles, values, and assumptions that typically
belong to the specific context, and data, basically coinciding with punctual
information and facts regarding the specific situation at hand and usually
representing the part of the argument that is made explicit in the text
13

Endoxon
Texte

Prmisse Mineure
(datum)

Maxime
Texte

Texte

Premire conclusion

Prmisse Mineure
Texte

Conclusion finale
Texte

14

La struttura degli argomenti

Ce beurre est naturel.
Il est fait avec le lait frais des Alpes.

Thse

ce beurre est naturel

Argomento:

Il est fait avec le lait frais des Alpes

Endoxon
Le lait frais des Alpes est
naturel

Prmisse Mineure

Maxime

Le lait frais des Alpes est la

cause matrielle de ce beurre

Si la qualit du produit est

bonne, le produit est bon

Premire conclusion

Prmisse Mineure

La cause matrielle de ce
beurre est naturelle

Conclusion finale
Ce beurre est naturel

16

Esempi empirici
Contesti diversi, attivit diverse:

Interazioni tra bambini (situazione quasi-sperimentale)

Interazioni in famiglia (cene)

17

Rivisitazione delle
prove di conservazione
dei liquidi

Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE

18

18

Argumentative Model of Topic

Endoxon

Esempio: risposta di non conservazione

The shape of a
container indicates its
volume
Maxime
Minor premise
(Datum)

Bigger the container,

bigger the amount of
liquid

Container A is bigger
than container C

Minor premise

First conclusion

Dimensions of container A are

bigger than dimensions of
container C

Final conclusion

Container A can contain

more liquid than C

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) .
20

Endoxon
La forme physique dun
rcipient indique le volume
(selon sa largueur,
hauteur)
Prmisse mineure
(Datum)
Maxime
Le verre A est plus
grand (plus haut) du
verre C

Premire
conclusion

Si un rcipient a des dimensions

majeures, il peut contenir un
contenu majeur

Prmisse mineure

Ce verre (A) a des dimensions

majeures du verre C

Conclusion finale

Ce rcipient peut contenir

plus de sirop du verre C

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

%sit:
%sit:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

*LEO:
mamma:: guarda!
*LEO:
guarda cosa sto facendo con il limone
*LEO:
sto cancellando
*LEO:
sto cancellando questo colore
MAM prende dei limoni e si china di fronte a LEO di modo che il suo
viso risulti all'altezza di quello di LEO
MAM posa alcuni limoni sul tavolo
*LEO:
dai dammelo
*MOM: eh?
*LEO:
posso avere questo limone?
*MOM: no:: no:: no:: no::
*LEO:
perch no?
*MOM: perch no? perch Leonardo, mamma ha bisogno
dei limoni
*LEO:
perch mamma?
*MOM: perch, Leonardo, tuo pap vuole mangiare una
buona insalata oggi [: con un tono di voce basso e dolce]
*LEO:
ah:: va bene mamma
22

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

23

24

25

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

Bibliografia
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: The
Pragma-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.
27