La visée méthodologique de cette étude détermine le parcours de la recherche : l’analyse de l’argumentation dans les joutes verbales et celle des figures de rhétorique, définies comme des formes-sens, dans les cinq pièces théâtrales de Bernard-Marie Koltès. Ces deux approches principales permettent de mettre en évidence la théâtralité et la dramaticité des paroles de lutte, qui instaurent des scènes d’agôn dans le théâtre contemporain. Ces réflexions, qui prennent aussi en compte les perspectives intrascéniques et extrascéniques inhérentes à la double énonciation théâtrale, visent à approfondir la compréhension des œuvres koltésiennes dans son rapport particulier au spectateur. Tous les efforts langagiers déployés ainsi que les diverses stratégies argumentatives et figurales conduisent à une incommunication finale, créant tout au long des pièces un mélange de tragique et de comique. D’où la dramaturgie de la confrontation et de la cohabitation de paroles agonales. / The methodological focus of this study is determining the course of research: the analysis of the argumentation in verbal sparring and of figures of speech, defined as sense-forms, in Bernard-Marie Koltès’ five theatrical plays. These two main approaches make it possible to highlight the theatricality and the dramaticity of words of struggle that establish scenes of agon in contemporary theatre. These reflections, which also take into account the intrascenic and extrascenic perspectives inherent in theatrical double enunciation, aim to deepen the understanding of the works of Koltès in their particular relation with the spectator. All language efforts made by characters in confrontations, as well as various argumentative and figurative strategies, prove to be in vain and always lead to a final non-communication, creating a mixture of the tragic and the comic throughout the plays. This is what is at stake in our work: to define Koltèsian dramaturgy as a confrontation and a cohabitation of agonal words.

Socioscientific argumentation has shown to be a feasible educational framework for promoting citizenship and for cultivating scientific literacy. However, there are several aspects of this educational framework that have been shown to be problematic. Consequently, in this thesis I investigated various aspects of quality of socioscientific argumentation from both an upper secondary student and a teacher perspective. By using students’ written argumentation on socioscientific issues (SSI) I studied how they justified their claims. The results showed that different SSI led students to use different subject areas in their justifications. I also compared science majors with social science majors and found that the number of justifications provided by the students is related to their discipline background. In these two studies, a new content focused analytical framework for analyzing content aspects of socioscientific argumentation, the SEE-SEP model, was used and shown to be suitable for this purpose. However, to ensure that students are able to produce high-quality arguments I suggest that both content and structural aspects need to be considered. As a result of this, I have presented a framework based on research literature and the Swedish curriculum, for analyzing and assessing both these aspects of socioscientific argumentation. Moreover, I investigated how science and language teachers assess students’ socioscientific argumentation and found that the science teachers focused on students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge, whereas language teachers focused on students’ ability to use content knowledge from references, and the structural and linguistic aspects of argumentation.   The complexity of teaching socioscientific argumentation makes it difficult to teach and assess comprehensively. In order to promote quality and include both content and structural aspects, I suggest that a co-operation among teachers of different disciplines is beneficial. / Socioscientific argumentation has shown to be a feasible educational framework for promoting citizenship and scientific literacy. In this thesis I investigated various aspects of quality of students socioscientific argumentation and how teachers assess this. The results showed that different SSI led students to use different subject areas in their justifications and that the number of justifications provided by the students is related to their discipline background. Moreover, to promote students high-quality arguments I have presented a framework for analyzing and assessing both content and structural aspects. I also investigated how science and language teachers assess students’ socioscientific argumentation and found that the science teachers focused on students’ ability to reproduce content knowledge, whereas language teachers focused on students’ ability to use content knowledge from references, and the structural and linguistic aspects of argumentation. The complexity of teaching socioscientific argumentation makes it difficult to teach and assess comprehensively. In order to promote quality and include both content and structural aspects, I suggest that a co-operation among teachers of different disciplines is beneficial. / <p>Article IV was in manuscript form at the time of the thesis defense and has been published afterwards.</p>

Cette thèse traite du problème de l'intégration d'une nouvelle information dans un système d'argumentation abstrait. Un tel système est un graphe orienté dont les nœuds représentent les arguments, et les arcs représentent les attaques entre arguments. Il existe divers moyen de décider quels arguments sont acceptés par l'agent qui utilise un tel système pour représenter ses croyances.Il peut arriver dans la vie d'un agent qu'il soit confronté à une information du type "tel argument devrait être accepté", alors que c'est en contradiction avec ses croyances actuelles, représentées par son système d'argumentation.Nous avons étudié dans cette thèse diverses approches pour intégrer une information à un système d'argumentation.Notre première contribution est une adaptation du cadre AGM pour la révision de croyances, habituellement utilisé lorsque les croyances de l'agent sont représentées dans un formalisme logique. Nous avons notamment adapté les postulats de rationalité proposés dans le cadre AGM pour pouvoir caractériser des opérateurs de révision de systèmes d'argumentation, et nous avons proposé différents moyens de générer les systèmes d'argumentation résultant de la révision.Nous avons ensuite proposé d'utiliser la révision AGM comme un outil pour réviser les systèmes d'argumentation. Il s'agit cette fois-ci d'une approche par encodage en logique du système d'argumentation, qui permet d'utiliser les opérateurs de révision usuels pour obtenir le résultat souhaité.Enfin, nous avons étudié le problème du forçage d'un ensemble d'arguments (comment modifier le système pour qu'un ensemble donné soit une extension). Nous avons proposé une nouvelle famille d'opérateurs qui garantissent le succès de l'opération, contrairement aux opérateurs de forçage existants, et nous avons montré qu'une traduction de nos approches en problèmes de satisfaction ou d'optimisation booléenne permet de développer des outils efficaces pour calculer le résultat du forçage. / This thesis tackles the problem of integrating a new piece of information in an abstract argumentation framework. Such a framework is a directed graph such that its nodes represent the arguments, and the directed edges represent the attacks between arguments. There are different ways to decide which arguments are accepted by the agent who uses such a framework to represent her beliefs.An agent may be confronted with a piece of information such that "this argument should be accepted", which is in contradiction with her current beliefs, represented by her argumentation framework.In this thesis, we have studied several approaches to incorporate a piece of information in an argumentation framework.Our first contribution is an adaptation of the AGM framework for belief revision, which has been developed for characterizing the incorporation of a new piece of information when the agent's beliefs are represented in a logical setting. We have adapted the rationality postulates from the AGM framework to characterize the revision operators suited to argumentation frameworks, and we have identified several ways to generate the argumentation frameworks resulting from the revision.We have also shown how to use AGM revision as a tool for revising argumentation frameworks. Our approach uses a logical encoding of the argumentation framework to take advantage of the classical revision operators, for deriving the expected result.At last, we have studied the problem of enforcing a set of arguments (how to change an argumentation framework so that a given set of arguments becomes an extension). We have developed a new family of operators which guarantee the success of the enforcement process, contrary to the existing approaches, and we have shown that a translation of our approaches into satisfaction and optimization problems makes possible to develop efficient tools for computing the result of the enforcement.

Quelles sont les techniques argumentatives utilisées par les avocats plaideurs pour convaincre lesjuges ? Telle est la question à laquelle nous essayons de répondre dans cette thèse portant sur une étude linguistique du discours juridique dans les grands procès politiques de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Le travail se compose d’une partie théorique où sont exposées les catégories d’analyse du rhétoricien de l’Antiquité Aristote et du rhétoricien contemporain Chaïm Perelman qui exposent tous les deux les principales stratégies de persuasion. La deuxième partie de ce travail est consacrée à l’analyse de textes authentiques : après une analyse des plaidoiries des avocats dans les procès du régime de Vichy, nous arrivons aux conclusions suivantes : les avocats de la défense ne plaident pas de la même manière que ceux de l’accusation d’une part, et, d’autre part, la plaidoirie traditionnelle n’a pas la même forme que la plaidoirie moderne. Comment est composée une plaidoirie traditionnelle ? Comment est composée une plaidoirie moderne ? Quelles sont les techniques spécifiques à l’accusation ou à la défense ? Y a-t-il des techniques communes ? A travers cette étude, nous vous invitons à découvrir la réponse à ces questions et bien d’autres encore. / What are argumentatives techniques used by lawyers litigants to convince the judges? Such is thequestion that we try to answer in this thesis concerning a linguistic study of the legal speech in the bigpolitical trials of the Second World War. The work consists of a theoretical part where are expose thecategories of analysis of the rhetorician of the Antiquity Aristote and of the contemporary rhetoricianChaïm Perelman who explain the main strategies of persuasion. The second part of this work isdedicated to the analysis of authentic texts: after an analysis of the pleas of lawyers in the trials of theregime of Vichy, our conclusion is: The defense counsels do not plead in the same way as those of thecharge on one hand, and, on the other hand, the traditional plea has no same shape as the modern plea. How consists a traditional plea? How consists a modern plea? What are the specific techniques in the charge or in the defense? Are there common techniques? Through this study, we invite you todiscover the answer to these questions and many others else.

This work undertakes an analysis of problems in the information model by which biomedical research is communicated on the Web, and proposes a semantic model by which these problems can be resolved. It uses and develops Activity Theory and Argumentation Theory as tools in this analysis, and produces a semantic model of biomedical communication on the Web, in OWL2, which it shows can be applied to current research articles and implemented in software. It makes contributions in three areas. This work contributes to Activity Theory, a model used in the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) domains, by resolving ambiguities and formalizing concepts previously obscure in the theory, and by reformulating it as an Activity Views Model. It contributes to Argumentation Theory, used in AI and Communications Theory, by integrating the work of Toulmin, Dung, and others, and applying it specifically to construct a semantic model of biomedical argumentation, which may be more generally applicable in scientific communications. And it contributes to improving scientific communications on the web, by developing a practical semantic model of biomedical communications, as arguments grounded in reproducible methods, materials and data, in OWL2.Lastly, this work demonstrates that our model can be (a) applied consistently to examples from the biomedical literature, with serialization in RDF; (b) applied independently and successfully, by biomedical research workers not specially trained in informatics; and (c) having published the model as an ontology, that it has been implemented in software, and is capable of further useful application in the biomedical communications ecosystem by others.

Cette thèse présente les résultats d'un projet de recherche multidisciplinaire (Agorantic) sur les systèmes de recommandation. Le but de ce travail était de proposer de nouvelles fonctionnalités qui peuvent rendre les systèmes de recommandations (RS) plus attrayants que ceux existants. Nous proposons également une nouvelle approche et une réflexion sur l'évaluation. Dans la conception du système, nous avons voulu répondre aux préoccupations suivantes: 1. Les gens s'habituent à recevoir des recommandations. Néanmoins, après quelques mauvaises recommandations, les utilisateurs ne seront plus convaincus par les RS. 2. En outre, si ces suggestions viennent sans explication, pourquoi les gens devraient les suivre ? 3. Le fait que la perception, les goûts et les humeurs des utilisateurs goûts varient au fil du temps est bien connue. Pourtant, la plupart des systèmes de recommandation ne parviennent pas à offrir le bon niveau de «réactivité» que les utilisateurs attendent, c'est à dire la capacité de détecter et d'intégrer des changements dans les besoins, les préférences, la popularité, etc. Recommander un film une semaine après sa sortie pourrait être trop tard. 4. L'utilisateur pourrait être intéressé par des articles moins populaires (dans la «longue traine»), c'est à dire des recommandations moins systématiques. Pour répondre à ces questions clés, nous avons conçu un nouveau système de recommandation sémantique et adaptatif (SRAS), comportant trois fonctionnalités innovantes, à savoir l'argumentation, l'adaptation dynamique et un algorithme d'appariement. • Adaptation dynamique: le système est mis à jour de façon continue, à chaque nouvelle note / évènement. (Chapitre 4) • Argumentation: chaque recommandation présente les raisons qui ont conduit à cette recommandation. Cela peut être considéré comme une première étape vers une argumentation plus sophistiqué. Notre volonté est de rendre les utilisateurs plus responsables de leur choix, en leur donnant le maximum d'informations. (Chapitre 5) • Algorithme d'appariement: permet aux articles les moins populaires d'être recommandés aux utilisateurs. (Chapitre 6) Nous avons conçu un nouveau système de recommandation capable de générer des recommandations textuellement bien argumentées dans lequel l'utilisateur final aura plusieurs éléments pour faire un choix éclairé. En outre, les paramètres du système sont dynamiquement et continuellement mis à jour, afin de fournir des recommandations et des arguments en la phase avec le passé très récent. Nous avons inclus un niveau sémantique, c'est à dire les mots, termes et expressions comme ils sont naturellement exprimés dans les commentaires utilisateurs. Nous n'utilisons pas d'étiquettes ou lexique pré-déterminé. Les performances de notre système sont comparables à l'état de l'art. En outre, le fait qu'il génère un argumentaire le rend encore plus attrayant et pourrait renforcer la fidélité des utilisateurs / This thesis presents the results of a multidisciplinary research project (Agorantic) on Recommender Systems. The goal of this work was to propose new features that may render recommender systems (RS) more attractive than the existing ones. We also propose a new approach to and a reflection about evaluation. In designing the system, we wanted to address the following concerns: 1. People are getting used to receive recommendations. Nevertheless, after a few bad recommendations, users will not be convinced anymore by the RS. 2. Moreover, if these suggestions come without explanations, why people should trust it? 3. The fact that item perception and user tastes and moods vary over time is well known. Still, most recommender systems fail to offer the right level of “reactivity” that users are expecting, i.e. the ability to detect and to integrate changes in needs, preferences, popularity, etc. Suggesting a movie a week after its release might be too late. In the same vein, it could take only a few ratings to make an item go from not advisable to advisable, or the other way around. 4. Users might be interested in less popular items (in the ” long tail”) and want less systematic recommendations. To answer these key issues, we have designed a new semantic and adaptive recommender system (SARS) including three innovative features, namely Argumentation, Dynamic Adaptation and a Matching Algorithm. • Dynamic Adaptation: the system is updated in a continuous way, as each new review/rating is posted. (Chapter 4) • Argumentation: each recommendation relies on and comes along with some keywords, providing the reasons that led to that recommendation. This can be seen as a first step towards a more sophisticated argumentation. We believe that, by making users more responsible for their choices, it will prevent them from losing confidence in the system. (Chapter 5) • Matching Algorithm: allows less popular items to be recommended by applying a match- ing game to users and items preferences. (Chapter 6) The system should be sensed as less intrusive thanks to relevant arguments (well-chosen words) and less responsible to unsatisfaction of the customers. We have designed a new recommender system intending to provide textually well-argued recommendations in which the end user will have more elements to make a well-informed choice. Moreover, the system parameters are dynamically and continuously updated, in order to pro- vide recommendations and arguments in phase with the very recent past. We have included a semantic level, i.e words, terms and phrases as they are naturally expressed in reviews about items. We do not use tags or pre-determined lexicon. The performances of our system are comparable to the state of the art. In addition, the fact that it provides argumentations makes it even more attractive and could enhance customers loyalty

Magister Educationis - MEd / Over the last 15 years the Department of Education has rolled out various projects in an attempt to improve Mathematics and Science results and to increase the amount of learners who exit their schooling with those subjects. The 2010 - 2014 matric results show a decrease in the number of students who exiting with Science. One of the factors that might influence the learners' decision to do science can be ascribed to the methodologies that the teachers are using to teach Science. In response to the latter, this study investigated the cognitive shifts of grade two learners' conceptual knowledge of the day and night cycle after being exposed to a Dialogical Argumentation Based Instructional Model. The Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) and Toulmin's Argumentation Pattern (TAP) were used as a framework to capture and interrogate learners' arguments with argumentation frames developed to categorize the learners’ argument responses. Analytical approaches were used to assess learners' argumentation skills along four stages namely intra-argumentation, inter-argumentation, whole class discussion and trans-argumentation. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The data was collected from grade 2 learners in a primary school in Cape Town, Western Cape Province in the form of a pre-post questionnaire, focus group interviews and classroom observation. The major findings of this study indicated that ● The Dialogical Argumentation Instructional model can assist learners to develop argumentative skills. ● The grade two learners in this study had alternative conceptions regarding the day and night cycle which is not scientifically valid. ● The views that learners hold are egocentric. ● DAIM is an effective teaching strategy to help learners to eliminate the misconceptions This study has shown that the Dialogical Argumentation Instructional Model (DAIM) seems to be effective in enhancing the learners’ understanding of the day and night cycle. / National Research Foundation

We provide a systematic in-depth study of the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs), a recent generalisation of Dung\''s abstract argumentation frameworks. This is done by associating with an ADF its characteristic one-step consequence operator and defining various semantics for ADFs as different fixpoints of this operator. We first show that several existing semantical notions are faithfully captured by our definition, then proceed to define new ADF semantics and show that they are proper generalisations of existing argumentation semantics from the literature. Most remarkably, this operator-based approach allows us to compare ADFs to related nonmonotonic formalisms like Dung argumentation frameworks and propositional logic programs. We use polynomial, faithful and modular translations to relate the formalisms, and our results show that both abstract argumentation frameworks and abstract dialectical frameworks are at most as expressive as propositional normal logic programs.

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have recently been proposed as a versatile generalization of Dung''s abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the computational complexity of ADFs. Our results show that while ADFs are one level up in the polynomial hierarchy compared to AFs, there is a useful subclass of ADFs which is as complex as AFs while arguably offering more modeling capacities. As a technical vehicle, we employ the approximation fixpoint theory of Denecker, Marek and Truszczyński, thus showing that it is also a useful tool for complexity analysis of operator-based semantics.

This thesis aims to explore students’ argumentation and decision-making relating to authentic socioscientific issues (SSI). The ability to make informed decisions about socio scientific issues has been recognized to be an important element in science education to achieve the goal of scientific literacy. However, deliberation on SSIs deals with the fact-value intertwinement and has proven to be a tricky affair, both for students and teachers. In paper I, the focus is on upper secondary students’ use of different reasons in arguing about the existence of wolfs in Sweden. To investigate the students’ ability to find supporting reasons from different subject areas in their informal argumentation, the SEE-SEP model was used as an analytical framework. The results showed that the value aspect dominates students’ informal argumentation on the SSI of wolves in Sweden. In paper II a six-step SSI instructional model is presented, designed to develop students’ ability to argue about complex multi-disciplinary issues. This six-step SSI instructional model aims to create a forum that encourages students to interact with one-another and discuss their arguments dynamically. In paper III students’ argumentation and decision-making upon an authentic SSI relating to environmental toxins in fish from the Baltic Sea, was studied. The students’ argumentation and decision making processes were followed closely and data were collected during multiple stages of the SSI-instructional model. The analysis focused on students’ skills of evaluation and the relationships between the values, knowledge and experiences that they used in their argumentation. The results showed that even though all of the students had access to the same information and agreed on the factual aspects of the issue, they came to different decisions, depending on their background values, knowledge and experiences (i.e. their intellectual baggage). Implications for teaching and research are discussed. / Förmågan att fatta välgrundade beslut i sociovetenskapliga dilemman (SSI) har lyfts fram som ett viktigt inslag i naturvetenskaplig undervisning för att förbereda eleverna på ett liv som medborgare i ett samhälle där kontroversiella frågor med naturvetenskaplig koppling förekommer i allt högre grad. Att hantera SSI-frågor i undervisningen och handskas med sammanflätningen av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv innebär dock stora utmaningar för både elever och lärare. Fokus i denna avhandling är inriktat mot att ytterligare synliggöra de ingående komponenterna och processerna som sker i arbetet med SSI-frågor, och därmed belysa viktiga aspekter som bör iakttas vid implementering av SSI-frågor i undervisningen. Genom studie I detekteras olika argument baserade på kunskaper, värderingar respektive erfarenheter kopplat till olika ämnesområden, och i studie II förs resonemang att det s.k. intellektuella baggaget, bestående av personliga värderingar, kunskaper och erfarenheter, styr viktning och värdering av olika argument och därmed vilket beslut som slutligen tas. En given slutsats är att SSI-baserad undervisning i det naturvetenskapliga klassrummet alltid måste bygga på en tolerans för en sammanflätning av vetenskapliga fakta, värderingar och etiska perspektiv.