Pratique de largumentation en anglais PDF

Preview

Summary

Pratique de largumentation en anglais...

Description

Pratique de l’argumentation en anglais Exam: Written (2 different parts, one question about vocab, theoretical, second one 500 words text to write, she gives a selection of topics). Oral exam: a presentation (based on a written text), topic of our choice, we need to tell her, 3-4’ of presentation (2pages). Two parts: written exam which will consist in two parts, theoretical, be able to define and illustrate them and the other part more practical write a short argumentative essay of 500/800 words. Oral exam based on a short presentation of our essay (5-10 min) on the topic of your choice, should be validated by Herbillon (present the arguments). Power points are enough to pass the exam. Next week: exercice try to distinguish what is a proper argument as opposed to assumption, cultural prejudices. Find a text that reflex cultural prejudice as opposed to what is a proper argument. __________________________________________________________________________________

General introduction LG =/ transparent medium LG is NOT a neutral vehicle that can provide a faithful / mimetic representation of reality: - All individuals are shaped by their culture they live in, its values, systems of thought, etc. - LG reflects these values and cultural assumptions Values regarded as natural by individuals and sometimes naturalised at a cultural level (internalisation, circulation, perpetuation) BUT such assumptions (which can verge on cultural stereotypes) are NOT natural at all: they convey conceptions that are culturally determined  Gender and race are such social/cultural constructs

1st Example Gender Gender= ‘social sex’  the social and cultural (biological) differences between men and women  What we regard as masculine/ feminine does not derive from our biological sex is culturally determined - Simone de Beauvoir’s quote (‘One is not born a woman, one becomes one’, The second sex) emphasis this distinction emphasises this distinction between sex (biology) and gender (culture+experience, as gender also relates to self-identity)

-

- Gender sometimes synonymous with patriarchal oppression  Means through which men have justified their allegedly natural domination of women BUT as a construct, it can be acted upon and transformed, not least through a different use of LG  Clear connection between LG and power

Example 2 - Race Notion of race also culturally constructed in the West  Non-European (and especially coloured) populations conceptualised as naturally inferior human beings (cf. colonisation) BUT as these Western assumptions of cultural superiority are gradually being exposed, these populations are slowly regaining some agency 1

The process of argumentation and its discursive nature - When you speak / write, your LG reflects some of these (sexist, racist, etc.) (pre)conceptions, as well as more conscious points of view (1) - When you talk to or argue with someone, the positions expressed by the various speakers’ LG are even more plural (2)  Discursive dimension of argumentation: LG = deeply constitutive feature of the argumentative process (thoughts and LG inextricably interconnected)  Argumentation develops in and through LG (also a branch of discourse analysis) BUT the argumentative process is not a passive or a static one: often perceived as the development and confrontation of points of view, i.e. the active opposition of positions in response to an argumentative question  The ‘discourse/counter-discourse’ articulation = traditional pattern of the argumentative process NB: not all discourses are argumentative!

Types of argumentation 2 main types: - Monological --> produced by a single speaker (see (1)) - Dialogical -> produced by several speakers (see (2)) (2) Dialogical type Examples (archetypal cases): - Trials; - Political debates; - Advertisements; - Conversations (private or public).  -

Rhetorically plural BUT NOT always based on conflicting positions: Speakers may argue even if their agree on a topic (i.e. share a positive or negative opinion) In most cases, they will express conflicting opinions: Radically different -> irreconcilable Interaction and influence (one of the speakers may end up changing his/her mind)

(1) Monological type Examples (prototypical cases): - Press editorials; - Literary criticism; - Delivering a speech; - Writing and argumentative essay.  Also rhetorically plural BUT less obvious: - When you address an audience (whether it is present or absent), you anticipate your opponents’ counter-arguments  Production including a dialogical element / counter-discursive traces - Thought defined as the process of ‘bouncing back’ (cf. Deleuze) and the resulting production as a collaborative process (invisible opponents), a cocreation taking the shape of an ‘inner 2

-

dialogue’ during which the speaker / writer performs for him-/herself the various possible argumentative positions  The full meaning of this production can only be grasped with reference to the counterdiscourses by which it is determined Intertextual / polyphonic texts = forms of monological discourse including a dialogical element

 A given linguistic situation becomes argumentative when a discursive opposition emerges between: - The Proponent (embodies ‘discourse’); - The Opponent (stands for ‘counter-discourse’); - Sometimes a Third Party (represents ‘doubt’ or even ‘radical scepticism’)

Definitions of argumentation 2 broad categories of definitions: - Common / ordinary definitions Learned / scholarly definitions

Common / ordinary definitions - Persuasion generally identified as one of the main purposes of argumentation  Also a defining trait in most learned definitions BUT conflict not inherent in argumentative situations (see supra) - Related to speech or thought (sometimes visual too) - Associating 2 components, i.e. (at least) one argument and a conclusion (sometimes articulated by a linking word / conceptual link) - Based on rational discourse > manipulation and emotions (often dismissed as fallacies)

Learned / scholarly definitions 1. Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca Argumentative theory defined as “the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent” (The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 1958)  Notion of persuasion central (cf. “adherence”) 2. Stephen Toulmin Groundbreaking model (1958) introducing new concepts  Argumentative discourse= sequence depending on 6 elements: data (1), warrant (2), backing (3), qualifier (4), claim (5) and rebuttal (6) Well-known example: Harry was born in Bermuda (1); since people who were born in Bermuda are generally British citizens (2), on account of (3) laws on British citizenship, so Harry is probably (4) a British citizen (5) unless his parents were foreigners (or unless he took on non-British citizenship)

3

3. Jacques Moeschler Insistence (1985) on the interplay between argumentation and refutation  Argumentation = relationship between argument(s) and conclusion BUT argument(s) imply counter-arguments (subject to rebuttal -> argumentation never final) 4. Oswald Ducrot Semantic approach (2004)  The conclusion of an argumentative process only deploys meanings that are linguistically contained in the argument itself 5. Christian Plantin Dictionary of argumentation (2016) defining: - Argumentation as the whole set of activities produced in an argumentative situation; - An argumentative situation is a discursive situation organised by an argumentative question; - An argumentative question is the question to which the speakers provide conflicting responses, articulated as ‘discourse / counterdiscourse’ - These responses express the speakers’ conclusions / points of view on the question - The discursive / counter-discursive elements supporting these conclusions / points of view have the status of arguments

Functions of argumentation These definitions underline, to various degrees, the centrality of: - The notion of persuasion: argumentation seen as a means to act upon / influence an opponent’s attitudes - The ‘discourse / counter-discourse’ articulation: disagreement seen as the precondition for the emergence of argumentation (presupposes the existence of a space for counter-discourse / diverging opinions) BUT argumentation does not simply confront conflicting positions: these need to be constructed, i.e. supported with arguments  Argumentation as a way of constructing discourse to make it more resistant to contestation.  Arguments must be put forward – it is generally the speaker who counters the doxa (public opinion) that has to prove his / her point

Specific functions of the argumentative process: 1. Cognitive function

4

Argumentation helps speakers to instantiate their opinions by verbalising them, then by confronting them to counter-discourses  it generates knowledge 2. Identity role Saying what you subscribe to (and why you do so) is a way of asserting who you are  argumentation enables speakers to: - reinforce their sense of belonging to a group - highlight their differences with other 3. Relational function The argumentative process can stress / strengthen: - complicity between speakers (through the expression of converging opinions) - conflict between speakers (through the expression of diverging opinions) Cours du 22/02 2.5 Cultural pre-assumptions We had to look for a text: reflect what we’ve called “cultural preassumptions” -> the use of language is not neutral, not transparent. Point: there are underlining cultural assumptions. Naming factors that can influence the speakers’ mode of expression. What are the main things that can shape our modes of expression. Assumptions when we speak, write, etc.

-

Shaped as an individual by our experiences.

On a more general level : beliefs, where we are from, Within a certain culture, there are certain types of thoughts. Type of society that shapes our thinking: worshipping animals, religions, political parties (Dictatorship, democratic, superstitious society), education system. We also have to remember that we live in a western society. Gender, race are also views-shapers. History also plays a role in shaping our thinking. History is an important factor: historical guilt can shape our values, but also the mindset of a certain culture in a particular point in time. (We are not going to think the same thing between 2 centuries.) Geographical factors are also important. Set of circumstances also shape the way we think.  Newspapers are also shaped: the editorial line of the newspaper. Ex: we won’t read an article in the NYTimes like we read in The Wall Street Journal. We, as readers also, we need to know. Generally we tend to focus on facts. Ex: radical feminism. All men are the same and they all oppress women. In this example, the author was quite conscious about her opinion. Here, it is very obvious in the way she expresses herself. Ex: IRA and Margaret Thatcher.  Betrays the side of the writer’s opinion. Text 1 - Thomas Paine Thomas Paine (1796) – Written during the American revolution. One of the founding father. Written in the late 18th century. Written 20 years after the independence, but also 13 years after the Treaty of Paris (peace between UK and US – 13 colonies are recognized.) A number of arguments are constantly put forward.

5

His conclusions are: he is suggesting something for the Natives, he is making a proposal consisting in “They deserve something”  Financial compensations because their lands were taken over by them. His arguments are: he tries to make a part of society more affluent part of the society. The settlers developed a very profitable system of landed properties, thanks to the property system. On the other hand the more miserable one, the natives. What lead to the social divisions in America: the settlers and the natives American  idea of property His conclusion = he means to defend the right of the possessors, but also the fact that Natives deserve a compensation for their loss. He is talking of a ground land. Every proprietor ows a land rent. Next to these conscious points, there are certain cultural assumptions. His use of language is not neutral. The term “cultivated”, “progression”, “civilized”, “natural”, all these words tend to describe the Natives as primitives. He describes the lives of Indians. He is conveying his meaning about the Indians as inferiors. Ha was, in his days, seen as progressive. But today we can think that he’s very judgmental! His ideas were at the core of the thinking at the time, scientism with progress from primitive to a more advanced “civilized” population  enlightenment thinking.

Text 2 - New York Times (more left-wing?) : With themes Set… A certain kind of ideology is expected in the editorial note of the journal. The attitude adopted by Obama is also reported. Highlighting the fact that Obama’s counselor laugh as McCain. They are discussing the ideas. At first, the article seem to be quite objective. But we can see that they lack neutrality when they discuss the idea of change. The treatment of Palin herself is also interesting. She’s greeted like a rock star. They throw discredit on her. We can wonder to what extend the points that are made of her, are more feministic of judgmental. She’s more than a rock star than a political figure. = judgmental. The text says between the lines that she is unfit for the White House. She is described as a weapon versus Obama. They are using a certain type of verbs that conveys a certain type of ideas. Sending her as a weapon. There are a lot of sexism in the article, verbs and nouns are objectifying her. Language in this article is not harmless. // Ice-cream with Sarah  3 lines to describe her ice cream! Very suggestive!! 2.6 Arguments pro Dutroux liberation: Prison does nothing good, need to be with society, being alone in a cell does nothing good Lots of people think he’s a monster, less people see what he’s behind this image. He maybe could be useful to society rather than staying in a prison He would cost way less money outside. Cours du 01/03

Dealing with counter-discourse Signs that indicate there are different point of views: discursive position >< counter-discursive positions Typographic signs such as dialogues, markers/linking words/adverbs (however, precisely (we are reversing a preceding position)…), verbs indicating that there is a reported speech, markers that show that a counter position is introduced, certain terms can be relevant (your argument is nonsense, bullshit), specific structures (concessive) (ex. But a certain point, but…), important to show if readers identify to the 2 discourses.

Focus on:

-

Counter-arguments and their production 6

-

Argumentative movements

Types of arguments We can produce counter arguments in all cases.

1. Arguments and counter-arguments Argumentative reversal = exercise aiming to show that an argument can always be turned against itself and lead to a different conclusion  Need to dissociate this form of ‘argumentative training’ from personal beliefs Exercise Produce at least one counter-argument in each case. 3 arguments pro  1. An individual’s sexual preferences are not related to his/ her ability to be a good parent  counter-arguments?

-

Having different role models, we need a feminine and a masculine one Protecting your child, the child could be mocked

2. Same-sex couples face greater obstacles than heterosexual ones to have children, which reflects a greater desire to become parents

-

Greater desire for the same sex parents, because they face greater obstacles (lot of money,… = more hopes, but it can lead to an objectification of the child, you privatize your own desire as parents, not the child’s’, they may except to much of him, a desire to have the same rights/ conformity by having a child).

3. For a child, it is better to have loving gay parents than alcoholic heterosexual ones  counterexamples?

-

A gay could be alcoholic

Three arguments against same sex adoption 1. A child needs a mother and father for his/her psychic balance counter arguments?

-

Can find them outside the parents When parents broke up, they only have one role model if one parent leaves

2. A child who is adopted by gay parents will be mocked and stigmatised (at school, etc.) Counter-arguments?

-

Children could be mean in other circumstances too Mixed parents should also refrain of having children since they are going to be mocked in one way or an other

3. A child who is adopted by a gay couple will reproduce his/her parents’ sexual choices as an adult  counter-examples?

-

It’s not a choice and not a disease, it’s not culturally determined but innate No study shows it 7

2. Argumentative movements 2 man types:

-

Occupation Concession = forms of counter-argumentation consisting in anticipating contestation in order to neutralise possible objections

1. Occupation 2 phases:

-

Introduce a possible objection Refute this objection Example of discursive markers: you will tell me/ object that…but

2. Concession

-

2 phases: Introduce an opponent’s argument = argument 1, on the basis of which a given conclusion (conclusion 1) was drawn,

-

Present a stronger amount = argument 2, on the basis of which a different / opposite conclusion (conclusion 2) will be drawn Example: I’m going to quit smoking. Death may be inevitable/ of course, death is inevitable but the later, the better.

-

Since death is inevitable (arg1) -> go on smoking (concl1) BUT the later, the better (arg2) -> quit smoking (concl2)

Occupation vs concession  =/ treatment of counter)-discourse

-

Occupation: you refute your opponent’s argument Concession: you acknowledge your opponent’s argument without drawing conclusions about its validity

Compare the following examples:

-

I love this dress, I’ll buy it. I know, you’ll tell me that 500 euros is a lot of money but for a designer’s dress, the price is acceptable. (the opponent’s argument is clearly refuted (the price is acceptable)  OCCUPATION

-

Of course, 500 euros is a lot of money for a dress… but it suits me, so I’ll buy it. (you acknowledge the argument, than you can assume the conclusion should not be the same, but we regard the argument as stronger and so we still give this conclusion, we’ll still buy it all the same, the refutation is not as clear)  CONCESSION 8

3. Types of arguments 1. Reduction ad absurdum argument = momentarily feigning to subscribe to your opponent’s thesis-only to show that it leads to consequences that even your opponent would not be prepared to accept  Often ironic*, we say the opposite of what we think. Example: To dismantle illegal drug networks, some people want to legalise soft drugs. This amounts to removing a legal sanction in order to remove crime. According to this logic, one should refrain from punishing murders in order to make crime disappear.

1’. Argument base on logical analogy = specific case of 1.  You emphasise the flaws of an opponent’s argument by putting forward a parallel argument (same logical structure) whose conclusion is clearly unacceptable Example: Bombing for peace is like screwing to virginity. Attention: Strawman fallacy (stratégie de l’homme de paille) (EXAM ?) = transversal strategy which can underlie both arguments as such and argumentative movements; it only occurs when you distort your opponent’s argument to make it easier to contest.

(Types of arguments focuses on the premise-conclusion sequence > treatment of counter-discourse as such) ...