L'argumentation dans la langue

Anscombre, Jean-Claude; Ducrot, Oswald

doi:10.3406/lgge.1976.2306

Cited by 455 publications

(277 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

159

Order By: Relevance

“…La fonction discursive (Galatanu, 1996d) Dans ce cadre constitué par les modalités, Galatanu (2003b, p. 99), à partir des développements théoriques de l'argumentation dans la langue (Anscombre et Ducrot, 1983), des topoï et des formes topiques (Anscombre (éd), 1995) et de la sémantique argumentative (Ducrot et Carel, 1999), signale que le non-modal n' existe pas dans le discours car tout énoncé est argumentatif et donc, il existe toujours une prise de position par le sujet parlant dans des conditions discursives « normales ». Ceci met en relief l'importance des valeurs modales portées par la signification des entités linguistiques.…”

Section: La Fonction Discursiveunclassified

Des interfaces pour l’analyse de la signification et du sens

Vega

2013

folios

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RésuméDans cet article nous cherchons à aborder des aspects liés aux orientations théoriques qui étudient la signification lexicale et de sens discursif. Nous rendons compte des apports les plus saillants de la Sémantique des Possibles Argumentatifs qui se présente comme un modèle pour analyser la signification des entités lexicales et leur transformation possible à partir de leur insertion dans le discours. Nous traitons également de l'axiologisation discursive qui se traduit en l'évaluation des représentations du monde que construit l'homme et dépasse l'idée de la langue comme permettant seulement la description de ce monde. Mots-clé:Signification, sens, discours, analyse (linguistique) du discours, sémantique des possibles argumentatifs, modalité, modalisation. ResumenEn este artículo se tratan aspectos de las propuestas teóricas que estudian el significado léxico y el sentido discursivo. En este texto se da cuenta de los aportes más salientes de la Semántica de los Posibles Argumentativos que se presenta como un modelo para el análisis del significado de las palabras y de su transformación posible a partir de su aparición en el discurso. Se aborda igualmente la axiologización discursiva que se traduce en la evaluación de las representaciones del mundo que construye el hombre y supera, este modelo, la idea de la lengua como un medio que permite simplemente la descripción de ese mundo. Palabras clave:Significado, sentido, discurso, análisis (lingüístico) del discurso, semántica de los posibles argumentativos, modalidad, modalización.Artículo recibido el 31 de agosto de 2012 y aprobado el 8 de febrero de 2013.

show abstract

Section: La Fonction Discursiveunclassified

Des interfaces pour l’analyse de la signification et du sens

Vega

2013

folios

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anscombre and Ducrot's Approach Anscombre and Ducrot (1983) emphasized a linguistic phenomenon called "the obligation to conclude" by studying the relationship between statements or propositions.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our example, the but-sentence "but I am tired" is a rebuttal for the conclusion that could have been drawn from the information "The weather is nice". To formalize this obligation to conclude, Anscombre and Ducrot (1983) studied the internal structure of arguments associating a claim to a conclusion. They used the term topos to indicate this structure.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation

Moulin

Bélanger

2010

Artif Intell Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding argumentation and its role in human reasoning has been a continuous subject of investigation for scholars from the ancient Greek philosophers to current researchers in philosophy, logic and artificial intelligence. In recent years, argumentation models have been used in different areas such as knowledge representation, explanation, proof elaboration, commonsense reasoning, logic programming, legal reasoning, decision making, and negotiation. However, these models address quite specific needs and there is need for a conceptual framework that would organize and compare existing argumentation-based models and methods. Such a framework would be very useful 2 especially for researchers and practitioners who want to select appropriate argumentation models or techniques to be incorporated in new software systems with argumentation capabilities. In this paper, we propose such a conceptual framework, based on taxonomy of the most important argumentation models, approaches and systems found in the literature. This framework highlights the similarities and differences between these argumentation models. As an illustration of the practical use of this framework, we present a case study which shows how we used this framework to select and enrich an argumentation model in a knowledge acquisition project which aimed at representing argumentative knowledge contained in texts critiquing military courses of action.

show abstract

“…Various approaches have been developed throughout the history of discourse words studies, among which the following can be mentioned: -Discourse-words based approaches to discourse theory (Ducrot, 1969(Ducrot, , 1973(Ducrot, ,1976(Ducrot, , 1977(Ducrot, , 1980a(Ducrot, , 1985Ducrot & Anscombre 1980, 1983 or utterance value (Nemo, 1992(Nemo, , 1996(Nemo, , 1999a; -Relevance-based approaches of DWs (Blakemore, 1987;Luscher 1994, Rouchota) -Discourse-based approaches of DWs (Schiffrin, 1987;DRT) -Speech-act based approaches of DWs (Fraser, 1987(Fraser, , 1996(Fraser, , 1998 -Distribution-based approaches of DWs (Rossari, 1993;Jayez & Rossari, 1996) The main differences among those approaches is: 1) the way they consider discourse words function: -In Ducrot's first models DWs' function is to indicate the functions of the utterances connected. DWs are described in instructional terms; -RT models, built explicitly (Wilson & Sperber, 1990, 1993) on a procedural renaming of Ducrot's instructions, see DWs as a guide for utterance interpretation (Lusher, 1994); -Speech-act based approaches consider that DWs have a connective function, and that their meaning is what is done when using a DW.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%