En del av syftet med ämnet naturkunskap i den svenska gymnasieskolan är att ge eleverna en slags naturvetenskaplig allmänbildning eller scientific literacy, som grund för diskussion och ställningstaganden i aktuella samhällsfrågor. Att undervisa naturkunskap med utgångspunkt i samhällsfrågor med naturvetenskapligt innehåll (SNI) är en metod där argumentation och diskussion får ta mycket plats i klassrummet. Studier visar dock att många lärare känner att diskussionen sker på bekostnad av kursens naturvetenskapliga innehåll och en omfattande studie visar att elever baserar sina argument på värderingar i högre grad än kunskap. Den här studien undersöker elevers argumentation och vad den baseras på för att öka kunskapen om hur argumentation och diskussion kan användas i undervisningen på ett bra sätt. Eleverna instruerades att argumentera för och emot en SNI som de själva valde. Deras skriftliga argument analyserades sedan med avseende på perspektiv (biologiskt, ekonomiskt eller socialt perspektiv) och grund (kunskap, värdering eller personlig erfarenhet). Resultaten visade att en övervägande majoritet av argumenten baserades på kunskap, en mindre del på värderingar och ytterst få på personlig erfarenhet. Det perspektiv som flest argument utgick ifrån var biologiskt, men det varierade mellan ämnena. En slutsats är att hur elever argumenterar är i hög grad beroende av hur den lärarledda diskussionen i klassrummet ser ut, vilka typer av argument som tas upp där och hur de värderas. Som lärare är det alltså viktigt att ha klart för sig vad bra argumentation är och föregå med gott exempel för eleverna.

Research into the luxury debate in 18th century Sweden has focused on poetry and literature, the wording of decrees and the minutes of the Swedish riksdag. One source material largely left unexplored is the body of dissertations published by Swedish universities of the time. Not only is this an unfortunate omission as the universities were important intellectual centres, but also because they had a distinct culture, heavily influenced by Latin and the classics, in which luxury condemnations played a pivotal role. Building on the notion that ideas are best studied as arguments in debates, this master’s thesis examines twelve dissertations published in Sweden in the years 1722–1779 using models of conceptual change and argumentation analysis as theoretical approaches. The results indicate that the academic debate on luxury, through its focus on classical antiquity and conceptual definition, distinguished itself from other contemporary Swedish contributions to the debate, and that the interpretation of its characteristics must proceed from both the dissertation genre and the learned culture of university. The investigation furthermore stresses the importance of the university as a venue for reception of ideas in the latter part of the Early Modern Period and emphasises the dissertations as a central medium in this process.

Cette thèse porte sur la modélisation d’un système d’aide à l’évolution du web de données en utilisant un système multi-agents. Plus particulièrement, elle a pour but de guider l’utilisateur dans sa démarche de modification d’une base de connaissances RDF. Elle aborde les problématiques suivantes : intégrer de nouveaux triplets résultant de l'annotation des documents, proposer le changement adéquat dans les deux niveaux, ontologie et données, en se basant sur des mesures de similarités, analyser les effets de changements sur la qualité des données et la gestion des versions en prenant en considération d'éventuels conflits. Cette question de recherche complexe engendre plusieurs problématiques dont les réponses sont dépendantes les unes des autres. Pour cela, nous nous sommes orientées vers le paradigme agent pour décomposer le problème. Il s’agit de répartir les tâches dans des agents. La coopération entre les agents permet de répondre au besoin de dépendance évoqué ci-dessus pour bénéficier de l’aspect dynamique et combler les inconvénients d’un système modulaire classique. Le choix d’un tel écosystème nous a permis de proposer une démarche d’évaluation de la qualité des données en employant un modèle d’argumentation. Il s’agit d’établir un consensus entre les agents pour prendre en considération les trois dimensions intrinsèques : la cohérence, la concision la complétude, la validation syntaxique et sémantique. Nous avons modélisé les métriques d’évaluation de chaque dimension sous forme d’arguments. L’acceptation ou pas d’un argument se décide via les préférences des agents.Chaque modification donne lieu à une nouvelle version de la base de connaissances RDF. Nous avons choisi de garder la dernière version de la base de connaissances. Pour cette raison, nous avons choisi de préserver les URI des ressources. Pour garder la trace des changements, nous annotons chaque ressource modifiée. Néanmoins, une base de connaissances peut être modifiée par plusieurs collaborateurs ce qui peut engendrer des conflits. Ils sont conjointement le résultat d’intégration de plusieurs données et le chevauchement des buts des agents. Pour gérer ces conflits, nous avons défini des règles. Nous avons appliqué notre travail de recherche au domaine de médecine générale. / In this thesis, we investigate the evolution of RDF datasets from documents and LOD. We identify the following issues : the integration of new triples, the proposition of changes by taking into account the data quality and the management of differents versions.To handle with the complexity of the web of data evolution, we propose an agent based argumentation framework. We assume that the agent specifications could facilitate the process of RDF dataset evolution. The agent technology is one of the most useful solution to cope with a complex problem. The agents work as a team and are autonomous in the sense that they have the ability to decide themselves which goals they should adopt and how these goals should be acheived. The Agents use argumentation theory to reach a consensus about the best change alternative. Relatively to this goal, we propose an argumentation model based on the metric related to the intrinsic dimensions.To keep a record of all the occured modifications, we are focused on the ressource version. In the case of a collaborative environment, several conflicts could be generated. To manage those conflicts, we define rules.The exploited domain is general medecine.

O presente trabalho tem duplo objetivo, prático e teórico. Em termos práticos, busca sistematizar as discussões sobre a responsabilização dos militares e do Estado por acontecimentos do regime militar, bem como sobre a busca da verdade e a preservação da memória. Destacam-se nas discussões os acontecimentos da Guerrilha do Araguaia. Em termos teóricos, tem a intenção de apresentar uma exposição compreensiva da Teoria da Argumentação, tentando adaptá-la, na medida do possível, às necessidades da Argumentação Jurídica. Para cumprir esse duplo objetivo, o trabalho aplica a Teoria da Argumentação às discussões sobre o regime militar almejando benefícios para a teoria e para a prática. Desse modo, o trabalho inicia apresentando os principais conceitos e ferramentas da Teoria da Argumentação. Em seguida, realiza algumas adaptações das ferramentas para que sejam utilizadas na argumentação jurídica. Por fim, utilizando os conceitos e ferramentas expostos e adaptados, apresenta o Mapa Argumentativo dos debates sobre o regime militar, com destaque para as discussões sobre a possibilidade de responsabilizar criminalmente os militares por torturas, execuções e desaparecimentos forçados. São levados em consideração especialmente os aspectos fáticos do caso da Guerrilha do Araguaia e argumentos levantados pelo STF no julgamento da ADPF 153 e pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos no Caso Gomes Lund (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brasil. A dissertação conclui que os militares não foram beneficiados pela Lei de Anistia e aponta para a continuidade dos debates tanto sobre o aspecto criminal quanto outros problemas identificados no Mapa. Na parte teórica, chama-se atenção para a necessidade de continuar o estudo da Teoria da Argumentação e de adaptá-la às necessidades da Argumentação Jurídica. / This dissertation has two objectives: a practical and a theoretical one. The practical objective is to organize discussions concerning the responsibility of the State and the Military due to events occurred in the Brazilian Military Government, as well as discussions about the search for the historical truth and preservation of its memory. Special attention is draw upon the Araguaias Guerilla. Theoretically, the work intends to present the main aspects of Argumentation Theory trying to adapt it - as long as possible - to be used in Legal Argumentation. To fulfill this double objective, one applies Argumentation Theory to the Military Government events discussions aiming for benefits both for theory and practice. Hence, it begins presenting the essential concepts and tools of Argumentation Theory. It follows with the tools adaptations to Legal Argumentation. Finally, the Argumentation Map of the discussions is presented. The problem whether the most severe crimes of the military personnel (tortures and executions for instance) were amnestied is dealt with in greater detail. The events of Araguaias Guerrilla, the arguments of Brazilian Supreme Court in ADPF 153 and the arguments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Gomes Lund v Brazil Case are all given special attention. The dissertation concludes that the military (States agents) were not amnestied. It also points out the next steps in the discussions. As for the theoretical concerns, the conclusion draws attention to the importance of studying and developing Argumentation Theory in connection with Legal Argumentation.

O presente trabalho tem duplo objetivo, prático e teórico. Em termos práticos, busca sistematizar as discussões sobre a responsabilização dos militares e do Estado por acontecimentos do regime militar, bem como sobre a busca da verdade e a preservação da memória. Destacam-se nas discussões os acontecimentos da Guerrilha do Araguaia. Em termos teóricos, tem a intenção de apresentar uma exposição compreensiva da Teoria da Argumentação, tentando adaptá-la, na medida do possível, às necessidades da Argumentação Jurídica. Para cumprir esse duplo objetivo, o trabalho aplica a Teoria da Argumentação às discussões sobre o regime militar almejando benefícios para a teoria e para a prática. Desse modo, o trabalho inicia apresentando os principais conceitos e ferramentas da Teoria da Argumentação. Em seguida, realiza algumas adaptações das ferramentas para que sejam utilizadas na argumentação jurídica. Por fim, utilizando os conceitos e ferramentas expostos e adaptados, apresenta o Mapa Argumentativo dos debates sobre o regime militar, com destaque para as discussões sobre a possibilidade de responsabilizar criminalmente os militares por torturas, execuções e desaparecimentos forçados. São levados em consideração especialmente os aspectos fáticos do caso da Guerrilha do Araguaia e argumentos levantados pelo STF no julgamento da ADPF 153 e pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos no Caso Gomes Lund (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brasil. A dissertação conclui que os militares não foram beneficiados pela Lei de Anistia e aponta para a continuidade dos debates tanto sobre o aspecto criminal quanto outros problemas identificados no Mapa. Na parte teórica, chama-se atenção para a necessidade de continuar o estudo da Teoria da Argumentação e de adaptá-la às necessidades da Argumentação Jurídica. / This dissertation has two objectives: a practical and a theoretical one. The practical objective is to organize discussions concerning the responsibility of the State and the Military due to events occurred in the Brazilian Military Government, as well as discussions about the search for the historical truth and preservation of its memory. Special attention is draw upon the Araguaias Guerilla. Theoretically, the work intends to present the main aspects of Argumentation Theory trying to adapt it - as long as possible - to be used in Legal Argumentation. To fulfill this double objective, one applies Argumentation Theory to the Military Government events discussions aiming for benefits both for theory and practice. Hence, it begins presenting the essential concepts and tools of Argumentation Theory. It follows with the tools adaptations to Legal Argumentation. Finally, the Argumentation Map of the discussions is presented. The problem whether the most severe crimes of the military personnel (tortures and executions for instance) were amnestied is dealt with in greater detail. The events of Araguaias Guerrilla, the arguments of Brazilian Supreme Court in ADPF 153 and the arguments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Gomes Lund v Brazil Case are all given special attention. The dissertation concludes that the military (States agents) were not amnestied. It also points out the next steps in the discussions. As for the theoretical concerns, the conclusion draws attention to the importance of studying and developing Argumentation Theory in connection with Legal Argumentation.

Nous avons entrepris, dans ce travail doctoral, une analyse stylistique du dialogue polémique, appliquée à un corpus littéraire à tendance philosophique : celui de l’œuvre philosophique de Voltaire. Nous avons accordé une attention particulière au style du polémiste aux dépens de ses idées philosophiques, maintes fois étudiées dans d’autres travaux. Le dialogue polémique dans l’œuvre philosophique de Voltaire n’est pas un simple procédé littéraire ; il constitue l’essence même de l’œuvre. La thèse comprend trois parties :L’analyse que nous avons effectuée dans la première partie de notre travail doctoral met avant tout l’accent sur la spécificité formelle du dialogue polémique et surtout sur sa nature conflictuelle, tout en examinant la manière dont il s’articule avec des genres littéraires divers et les différentes formes du discours qu’il revêt. La polémique s’engage quand les interlocuteurs admettent des thèses opposées et que chacun suppose que le discours adverse est mal déduit et fondé sur des faux raisonnements : distanciation et défense sont donc interdépendantes. C’est pour cette raison que nous avons entrepris, dans la deuxième partie de notre travail doctoral, une étude sur le fonctionnement de l’argumentation dans le dialogue polémique voltairien. Le détournement est une spécificité stylistique chez notre polémiste, qui dévoile sa présence constante dans ses écritures philosophiques. Dans ce sens, il nous a paru nécessaire d’étudier, dans la troisième partie de notre travail doctoral, le style détourné dans les œuvres philosophique de Voltaire tout en soulignant l'ambiguïté énonciative qui s’attache à ses différentes figures. / In this doctoral work, we have undertaken a stylistic analysis of polemical dialogue, applied to a literary corpus with a philosophical tendency: that of Voltaire's philosophical work. We have paid particular attention to the style of the polemicist at the expense of his philosophical ideas, often studied in other works. The polemical dialogue in Voltaire's philosophical work is not merely a literary process; It is the very essence of the work. The thesis consists of three parts:The analysis that we carried out in the first part of our doctoral work focuses above all on the formal specificity of polemical dialogue and especially on its conflictual nature, while examining the way it articulates with various literary genres And the different forms of discourse it assumes.Polemicism begins when the interlocutors admit opposing theses and each assumes that the opposing discourse is wrongly deduced and based on false reasoning: distancing and defense are therefore interdependent. For this reason, in the second part of our doctoral work, we undertook a study on the functioning of the argument in the Voltairian polemical dialogue.The diversion is a stylistic specificity in our polemicist, who reveals its constant presence in its philosophical writings. In this sense, it seemed necessary to study in the third part of our doctoral work the diverted style in Voltaire's philosophical works, while underlining the enunciative ambiguity attached to its various figures.

La sémantique des cadres et l’analyse argumentative comptent parmi les approches les plus sollicitées en linguistique du discours. De nombreuses études parues ces dernières années font ainsi appel aux cadres sémantiques pour analyser la dimension lexicale des discours et aux topoï argumentatifs pour analyser leur dimension argumentative. Or, cette simple addition de différentes techniques d’analyse est contradictoire avec les prémisses même de la sémantique des cadres. En effet, plus encore qu’un outil d’analyse sémantique, les cadres sémantiques sont un format de représentation cognitive structurant nos connaissances ainsi que notre perception du monde. Par conséquent, les cadres sémantiques permettent, en principe, de décrire l’intégralité des structures de savoir sous-jacentes aux discours, et ceci à tous les niveaux d’abstraction. L’intégration des dimensions de sens ici analysées passe par l’intégration du concept de relation argumentative dans la méthodologie communément appliquée en analyse des cadres. Les structures argumentatives reposant nécessairement sur des structures conceptuelles analogues, l’outil méthodologique ainsi développé permet une description intégrée de ces différentes dimensions et de leur interaction dans la construction discursive du sens. Dans la partie empirique, il sera ensuite appliqué à l’analyse des discours parlementaires sur le nucléaire civil à l’Assemblée nationale française et au Bundestag allemand sur la période 1946–2012. / Frame semantics and argumentation analysis are among the most popular research methodologies in discourse linguistics. Over the course of the last few years, semantic frames and argumentative topoi have been used in numerous studies to analyse the lexical and argumentative dimension of discourse. However, their simple addition contradicts one of the most basic premises of frame semantics, namely, the idea that frames are not only a tool of semantic analysis but also the universal format of conceptual representation structuring our know ledge of and our interactions with the world that surrounds us. Semantic frames, thus, potentially allow for a description of all knowledge structures underlying discourse at different levels of abstraction. By integrating the concept of argumentative relations in the established methodology of frame analysis, these different dimensions of discursive meaning construction become describable in frame semantic terms. These argumentative relations between discourse elements at the text surface can be seen as mirroring equivalent relations between the constituent elements of cognitive frames at the conceptual level. This approach will be used in the empirical section to analyse the parliamentary discourse on nuclear energy in the French Assemblée nationale and the German Bundestag from 1946 to 2012.

No description available.

I denna uppsats undersöker jag hur det är möjligt att med hjälp av bland annat Ernst Cassirers teorier kring myter och genom att se hur dessa tar sig i uttryck i ett narratio, nå en utökad förståelse för argumentation genom att ta fasta på det som ligger utanför logikens och det rationella förnuftets område. Med utgångspunkt i Cassirer, kompletterad av Jean-Pierre Vernant, Cornelius Castoriadis och Jesper Svenbro, visar jag hur mŷthos hela tiden är närvarande i vårt tänkande, hur mŷthos skapar och omskapar mening samtidigt som denna mening sätts i spel genom olika myter. I argumentation tar dessa myter formen av det som i den antika dispositionen för ett argumenterande tal kallades narratio. En av de viktigaste funktionerna för narrationen är att skapa trovärdighet åt ett mŷthos och detta sker på fyra olika sätt: prosans genrekarakteristiska, diakrona handlingskopplingar, anagnorisis, samt den synkrona sammanlänkningen. Den sistnämnda ger också övergången till en annan viktig aspekt av trovärdighetsskapandet; elocutio, där jag undersöker två typer av figurer och troper: överförande och förstärkande. I de överförande figurerna kan vi se hur mŷthos bricoleras av betydelser hämtade från andra fält, medan vi i de förstärkande figurerna kan se vad som skapat ett specifikt mŷthos och vilket pathos som varit viktig för mytskaparen. Uppsatsens slutsats blir därmed att människan, trots vår uppfattning om argumentation som en rationell företeelse byggd på logik, istället alltid är, med Derridas ord, mytopoetiska bricoleurer. Vi kan därmed inte bortse från myterna när vi undersöker argumentation samtidigt som vi därmed också måste lämna önskan om att värdera, rangordna och systematisera all argumentation, en tro som ur detta perspektiv bara blir till en myt. För denna argumentationssyn med grunden i retoriken blir istället Aristoteles ideal fronesis viktigt, då detta synsätt innebär förståelse, som i förlängningen ger en klokhet om vilka handlingsval som i slutändan gör gott. / In this essay I examine how we, with the help of Ernst Cassirers theories concerning myths and by examining how these are expressed in a narratio, can achieve an expanded understanding of argumentation by also taking to account that which lies beyond the area of reason and logic. By building on Cassirer, complemented with the thinking of Jean-Pierre Vernant, Cornelius Castoriadis and Jesper Svenbro, I’m able to show how mŷthos always is present in our thinking, and how mŷthos always creates and recreates meaning while at the same time putting that meaning to use in various myths. In argumentation these myths take the form of the roman concept narratio. One of the key features of the narrative is to provide credibility to mŷthos, and this is done in four ways: through the characteristics of the prosaic genre, the diachronic linking of events, anagnorisis and the synchronic linking of events. The latter also provides the transition to another of the vital parts in the process of credibility¸ elocutio, where I examine two types of figures and tropes: transferring and emphasizing. The transferring figures gives us an insight of how we create mŷthos by taking in meaning from other fields, while the emphasizing figures show us how pathos always is important to the myth-maker. The conclusions of this essay is thus that man, despite our conception of argumentation as a rational phenomenon based on reason and logic, rather is, in Derrida’s words, a mythopoetic bricoleur. We can not ignore this when we set out to investigate argumentation and we have to abandon our wish to evaluate, rank and systematize all argumentation. Instead Aristotle provides us with an answer in his rhetorical ideal fronesis, because when we reach understanding of our myth-making it’s also possible for us to make decisions that will hopefully do good.

Uppsatsen undersöker retoriseringen av begreppet 'frihet' i svensk politik med analysfokus på Moderaternas politiska diskurs 1956-2014. Genom att synliggöra eventuella förändringar i frihetsbegreppets representationer syftar uppsatsen till att belysa hur begrepp kan fyllas med olika innebörder och visa hur de på detta sätt kan bli persuasiva som bärare av olika ideologiska föreställningar – dvs. hur till synes neutrala ord blir politiskt laddade, och med vilka medel det kan ske. / This essay discusses the concept of 'freedom' and it's rhetorization in Swedish liberal political discourse 1956-2014.