1887
Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper consists of a detailed analysis of how the participants in a debate build their emotional position during the interaction and how such a position is strongly related to the conclusion they defend. In this case study, teenage Mexican, students, arguing about access to drinking water, display extensive discursive work on the emotional tonality given to the issue. Plantin’s (2011) methodological tools are adopted to follow two alternative emotional framings produced by disagreeing students, starting from a common, highly negative, thymic tonality. Through the analysis of four parameters (distance to the problem; causality/agentivity; possibility of control and conformity to the norms) we describe how the emotional dimension of ( Grize 1997 ) is argumentatively relevant. In authentic discourse, it is impossible to separate emotion from reason. The conclusion section discusses the implications for the design of argumentation-based pedagogical activities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol
2017-10-13
2019-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albe, Virginie
    2006 “Procédés discursifs et rôles sociaux d’élèves en groupes de discussion sur une controverse socio-scientifique.” Revue française de pédagogie157: 103–118. doi: 10.4000/rfp.604
    https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.604 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andriessen, Jerry , Mirjam Pardijs & Michael Baker
    2013 “Getting on and Getting along.” InAffective Learning Together, ed. by Michael Baker , Sanna Järvelä & Jerry Andriessen , 205–229. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot
    1997 [1981]L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Michael , Jerry Andriessen & Sanna Järvelä
    2013 Affective Learning Together. Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
  5. Baker, Michael & Jerry Andriessen
    2009 “Socio-Relational, Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of CSCL Interactions.” InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (2), ed. by Angelique Dimitracopoulou , Claire O’Malley , Daniel Suthers & Peter Reimann , 31–33. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, Michael , Matthieu Quignard , Kristine Lund & Marije van Amelsvoort
    2002 “Designing a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Situation for Broadening and Deepening Understanding of the Space of Debate”. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , J. Anthony Blair , Charles A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , 55–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caffi, Claudia & Richard W. Janney
    1994 “Toward a Pragmatics of Emotive Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics22 (3–4): 325–373. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90115‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90115-5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cahour, Béatrice
    2013 “Emotions: Characteristics, Emergence and Circulation in Interactional Learning”. InAffective Learning Together, ed. by Michael Baker , Sanna Järvelä & Jerry Andriessen , 52–69. Basingstoke, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fowler, Samantha R. , Dana L. Zeidler & Troy D. Sadler
    2009 “Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students.” International Journal of Science Education31 (2): 279–296. doi: 10.1080/09500690701787909
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goffman, Erwin
    1967Interaction Ritual: Esays in Face-to-face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Grize, Jean-Blaise
    1997 [1990]Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hamblin, Charles L.
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kacem, Saida & Laurence Simonneaux
    2009 “The Teaching of Socioscientific Issues in Interdisciplinarity Biology-Philosophy, an Ethical Stake and Citizenship Issue.” US-China Education Review6 (2): 44–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Järvenoja, Hanna & Sanna Järvelä
    2013 “Regulating Emotions Together for Motivated Collaboration”. InAffective Learning Together, ed. by Michael Baker , Sanna Järvelä & Jerry Andriessen , 162–181. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Micheli, Raphaël
    2013 “Esquisse d’une typologie des modes de sémiotisation verbale de l’émotion”. Semen35: 17–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010L’émotion augmentée: l’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français. Paris: Cerf.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1958Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Plantin, Christian
    2011Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Berne: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0070‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0070-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Plantin, Christian , Marianne Doury & Véronique Traverso
    2000Les émotions dans les interactions. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Polo, Claire
    2014L’eau à la bouche: ressources et travail argumentatifs des élèves lors de débats socio-scientifiques sur l’eau potable. PhD dissertation, Lyon 2 University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Real Academia de la lengua Española
    Real Academia de la lengua Española 2001 “agotar”, Online Dictionary, 22th edition. lema.rae.es/drae/?val=agotar. AccessedOctober 30th 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Roschelle, Jeremy & Stéphanie D. Teasley
    1995 “The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.” InThe First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, ed. by Shelley V. Goldman , James G. Greeno , John L. Schnase & Edward L. Cunnius , 69–97. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑85098‑1_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5 [Google Scholar]
  23. Simonneaux, Laurence & Jean Simonneaux
    2009 “Students’ Socio-Scientific Reasoning on Controversies from the Viewpoint of Education for Sustainable Development.” Cultural Studies of Science Education4 (3): 657–687. doi: 10.1007/s11422‑008‑9141‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x [Google Scholar]
  24. Sins, Patrick & Karl Karlgren
    2013 “Identifying and Overcoming Tension in Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Professional Development.” InAffective Learning Together, ed. by Michael Baker , Sanna Järvelä & Jerry Andriessen , 185–203. Basingstoke, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Toulmin, Stephen E.
    2003 [1958]The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ungerer, Friedrich
    1997 “Emotions and Emotional Language in English and German News Stories.” InThe Language of Emotions, ed. by Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven , 307–328. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.85.20ung
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.85.20ung [Google Scholar]
  27. Walton, Douglas
    1992The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Zeidler, Danna L. , Troy D. Sadler , Michael L. Simmons & Elaine V. Howes
    2005 “Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education.” Science Education89 (3): 357–377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation , emotional framing , group cognition , norms , schematization , socio-scientific issues and values
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error