This thesis is a ”meta-analysis” that investigates the apparent lack of coherence in August Strindberg’s A Dream Play and how this has been dealt with by scholars in literary and theatre studies. The primary material consists of a selection of research publications dated from the 1920’s up until the present day. The analysis concludes that there are four major groups of analyses that, in this regard, provide different solutions on how to counter this seeming deficiency. On the back of this, four general arguments are examined in detail: early attempts to classify this enigmatic drama with regard to genre, psychological analysis, analysis of philosophical ideas and contents, and analysis of the visual aspects of the play. By arguing along these lines of inquiry, scholars wish to substantiate the validity of various elements that harmonize the apparent disparity of the play and exhibit a coherent sequence of events and an interpretable meaning. Moreover, the ways in which these ”solutions” are substantiated and conveyed, that is, the argumentative practices, are examined and critically evaluated. Finally, based on the previous analysis, suggestions pertaining to further areas of research are offered and briefly discussed.

Notre recherche a pour objectif d’améliorer la didactique de l’argumentation dans les classes de Français langue étrangère au Vietnam. L’étude s’appuie sur l’hypothèse que les étudiants participent à une culture où l’autorité est très importante et qu’il faut, par conséquent, mettre le problème de la relation des étudiants avec l’autorité à la base de leurs difficultés à entrer dans des discussions argumentatives. Dans cette perspective, parler, manifester son désaccord, traiter un désaccord dans une relation d’autorité et, surtout, dans une société marquée par l’autorité et le consensus n’est pas quelque chose d’évident. De même, savoir utiliser et critiquer l’argument d’autorité dans un échange argumentatif est censé être difficile.Notre travail s’articule sur quatre parties. La première repose sur le principe méthodologique selon lequel travailler l’argumentation en français langue étrangère suppose qu’on travaille aussi, en parallèle, la capacité d’argumenter comme capacité linguistique générale et la capacité d’argumenter dans sa propre langue, le vietnamien. Ensuite, la deuxième partie est consacrée à l’étude du langage argumentatif dans une perspective contrastive français-vietnamien. Nous tenterons de traduire en vietnamien des termes et des expressions qui sont, certes, très élémentaires, mais néanmoins susceptibles de poser à nos étudiants des difficultés de compréhension. La troisième partie s’intéresse à l’autorité et au raisonnement par autorité, qui joue un rôle déterminant dans la façon d’argumenter des Vietnamiens. Nous avons essayé d’expliquer pourquoi les Vietnamiens sont « sages » en interaction tout en rendant compte de la prégnance de la « préférence pour l'accord » en vietnamien, ce qui se manifeste clairement à travers des proverbes et des locutions traditionnelles, et de montrer comment cette tendance s'articule avec une pratique « dialectique » du langage, qui pèse toujours le pour et le contre et qui refuse la polémicité. Nous avons analysé une question actuellement très débattue au Vietnam : l’exploitation de la bauxite. Ce travail a un double objectif : il vise d’une part à illustrer la maîtrise de l’argumentation des Vietnamiens, d’autre part sert de fil de conducteur pour la quatrième partie. Cette dernière, par l’élaboration des unités didactiques portant sur des thèmes d’actualité, notamment la question du clonage, vise à proposer une nouvelle démarche d’enseignement/apprentissage en vue d’une amélioration de la didactique de l’argumentation dans les classes de français langue étrangère au Vietnam, démarche fondée sur l’appropriation des contenus argumentatifs, et remettant en cause la trop fameuse « passivité vietnamienne ». / The aim of this dissertation is to improve the teaching of argumentation in classes of French as a foreign language in Vietnam. The study is based on the assumption that the Vietnamese students are influenced by a particular culture where authority is very important; therefore the difficulties in participating to argumentative discussions are attributed to inhibitions produced by a complex system of authority. In this perspective, expressing and taking on a disagreement in an academic context marked by authority and consensus, is never so simple. Similarly, knowing when and how to use or criticize the argument of authority in an argumentative conversation is supposed to be difficult.This dissertation is structured in four parts. The first is based on the methodological principle that to teach argumentation in French as a foreign language we have to teach the argumentation as a general language as well as the ability to argue in one’s mother tongue, here Vietnamese. The second part is devoted to study the argumentation language in a contrastive perspective French / Vietnamese. We have translated in Vietnamese words and expressions which are, although basic, difficult to understand for our students. The third section focuses on study of authority and reasoning by authority. We tried to explain why the Vietnamese are "soft" in interaction while reflecting the predominance of "preference for agreement" in Vietnamese. We have extensively analyzed a disputed issue on the exploitation of bauxite in Vietnam. This analysis aims both to demonstrate the intensity of the arguments in contemporary Vietnam, and, on the other hand, it lays the foundation for the fourth part of the dissertation. This last part develops teaching units on various topics of current interest (e.g. cloning), is to propose a new approach to teaching argumentation in French as a second language, grounded in the necessary appropriation of argumentative contents and casting doubt on the too famous “Vietnamese passivity”.

[pt] Esta tese analisa o processo de contestação iniciado pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no Tribunal Penal Internacional. A promulgação por esses Estados de práticas de contestação representou um momento sem precedentes na prática do direito penal internacional. Não apenas os Estados se engajaram com o Tribunal por meio de uma vasta gama de práticas, mas também essa participação gerou um nível alto de escrutínio de estudiosos e profissionais do direito internacional. Ao longo da resposta ao envolvimento africano com o TPI, esteve constantemente presente a conhecida mobilização da fronteira entre direito e política. Uma posição frequente nas reações dos praticantes foi a de que a política não deveria ocorrer no ambiente do Tribunal e a prática do direito internacional deve ser capaz de transcendê-la. A análise desta tese centra-se nestes dois elementos: as práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos e as respostas dadas pelo Tribunal. Nesta tese, questiono se a forma como o Tribunal deu sentido a essas práticas por meio da divisão do trabalho entre direito e política afetou a capacidade desses Estados contestadores de provocar mudanças no direito internacional. Por meio dessa pergunta, procuro capturar os aspectos mais significativos que estão velados não apenas nas práticas de contestação, mas na atribuição de significados em resposta a elas. Esse esforço requer um exame dos padrões de significado subjacentes a essas práticas e narrativas, pois apontam para as condições que permitem que certos atores questionem a autoridade. Argumento que a criação de uma fronteira entre o que pertence à esfera do direito e à esfera da política é em si uma postura política que tem consequências na forma como o direito internacional é praticado. A forma como o direito e a política são mobilizados nas práticas argumentativas do direito internacional criam um conjunto de barreiras para que certas práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no TPI, quando enquadradas como política, não tenham chance de provocar a mudança em primeiro lugar. / [en] This thesis works through the process of contestation embarked by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the International Criminal Court. The enactment by these States of practices of contestation represented an unprecedented moment in the practice of international criminal law. Not only were States engaging with the Court through a vast array of practices, but also this participation generated an enormous level of scrutiny from scholars and practitioners of international law. Throughout the response to the African engagement with the ICC was the familiar mobilization of the frontier between law and politics. A frequent position in the practitioners reactions was that politics should not take place in the environment of the Court, and the practice of international law should be able to transcend it. The analysis of this thesis focuses on these two features: the practices of contestation performed by African States and the responses it engendered from the Court. In this thesis, I question whether the way the Court made sense of these practices through the division of labour between law and politics affected the ability of these contesting States of engendering change in international law. Through this question, I seek to grasp the more significant aspects that are veiled not only in the practices of contestation but in the attribution of meanings in response to them. This endeavour requires an examination of the patterns of meaning underlying these practices and narratives, as they point to the conditions that allow certain actors to question authority. I argue that the creation of a boundary between what belongs to the realm of law and the sphere of politics is itself a political stance that has consequences on the way international law is enacted. The way law and politics are mobilized in the argumentative practices of international law creates a set of barriers so that certain practices of contestation being performed by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the ICC, when framed as politics, do not stand a chance to provoke change in the first place.

L’elaborato analizza la ricezione del pensiero di Origene di Alessandria (c. 184-c.253) nell’opera del teologo arminiano Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), soffermandosi in particolare sulla concezione origeniana della libertà e sulle questioni che vi sono annesse. Tale analisi consente anche di chiarire alcune pratiche argomentative e dinamiche intellettuali, soprattutto riguardanti i dibattiti religiosi ed interconfessionali, nella seconda metà del XVII secolo. L’elaborato è diviso in tre sezioni. La prima, di carattere introduttivo, mira ad indagare le premesse epistemologiche di Le Clerc, nonché la sua relazione con le auctoritates religiose ed intellettuali del passato. La seconda sezione prende in esame le citazioni dirette di Origene presenti nella vasta produzione di Le Clerc, come pure i suoi rimandi all’opera dell’Alessandrino e al suo pensiero, consentendo in questo modo di delineare un quadro preciso dell’Origene letto e reinterpretato da Le Clerc. La terza sezione restringe infine il campo d’indagine allo sguardo che Le Clerc porta sulla dimensione più propriamente teologica di Origene ed in particolar modo su quel nodo di concetti che ruota attorno al tema della libertà umana (peccato originale, grazia e predestinazione, il problema del male). Questo studio mostra come, malgrado l’indubbia, e talvolta malcelata, simpatia per Origene, Le Clerc non possa essere definito tout court un ‘origenista’, dal momento che la sua visione epistemologica, scritturale e teologica lo distanzia da una acritica e piena adesione al pensiero dell’Alessandrino. / The present thesis analyses the reception of the thought of Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-c. 253) in Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736). Its particular focus is on Origen's conception of freedom and the theological doctrines related to it. The goal of this thesis is to uncover, through Le Clerc's use of Origen, some of the argumentative practices and the intellectual dynamics of the time, in particular in religious, especially inter-confessional, debates. This thesis is divided into three main parts. The first part has mainly an introductory character and looks at the epistemological assumptions of Le Clerc and his relationship with intellectual and religious authorities of the past. The second part reviews the various ways in which Le Clerc quoted, referred to or otherwise made use of the thought or the name of Origen in his vast production. This part provides a first result in that it frames, in general, Le Clerc's reception of Origen. This step is, at the same time, also preparatory for the material contained in part three. In the third part, only the material is considered which is strictly related to Origen's idea of freedom and the related theological doctrines of original sin, grace/predestination, and the problem of evil. The result of this analysis, as it appears form the examination of argumentative practices in the previous sections, is that Le Clerc was no simple "Origenist" but neither was he was fully uncommitted to the Origenian cause. A full commitment to Origen, despite this strong sympathy, was still hindered by Le Clerc's epistemological, scriptural and theological outlook.