Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver

7/26/2019 Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver

1/27

Strategic Maneuver.Analisi argomentativa in contesti

interattivi

Francesco Arcidiacono

Universit di Neuchtel (Svizzera)

[email protected]

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


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


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


4/27

Perch largomentazione?

Scambio ragionevole, co-costruzione di

decisioni

Qualitdei processi di socializzazione

Conoscenza e capacit di interazione sociale

4


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.


6/27


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


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


9/279

Soggetto

Oggetto

Strumento

Altro

Prospettiva socio-culturale:- interazioni sociali

- mediazioni simboliche (linguaggio, tecnologie, etc.)


10/27

Qualche modello di analisi

Critical Discussion

(van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004)

Argumentum Model of Topic

(Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2009)

10


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


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


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


14/27

14

Texte

Texte

Texte

Texte

Texte

Prmisse Mineure

(datum)

Endoxon

Prmisse Mineure

Maxime

Conclusion finale

Premire conclus ion


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


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


17/27

Esempi empirici

Contesti diversi, attivit diverse:

- Interazioni tra bambini (situazione quasi-sperimentale)

- Interazioni in famiglia (cene)

17


18/27Haute Ecole Pdagogique - BEJUNE18

18

Rivisitazione delle

prove di conservazione

dei liquidi


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


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) .


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


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


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


24/27

24


25/27

25


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


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.

Documents

Arcidiacono Strategic Maneuver