<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt / line-height:150% / font-family: &quot / Times New Roman&quot / ,&quot / serif&quot / mso-bidi-font-family:&quot / Times New Roman&quot / mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi / mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The basic premise of this study was that when a learner is confronted with two contradictory explanations of the same phenomenon, there is cognitive dissonance in the learner as the learner tries to determine which of the two explanations is correct. An argumentation-based instructional intervention programme (ABIIP) was created for and used on and by the Grade 10 learners in order to attempt to ameliorate this cognitive conflict. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt / line-height:150% / font-family: &quot / Times New Roman&quot / ,&quot / serif&quot / mso-bidi-font-family:&quot / Times New Roman&quot / mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi">The purpose of this study was to determine the relative impact of that intervention programme on Grade 10 learners&rsquo / conceptions of lightning and thunder. The programme was designed to help learners to develop argumentative skills and use the acquired skills to negotiate and harmonise divergent and conflicting explanations of the nature of lightning and thunder that are propounded by different worldviews (Science and indigenous knowledge).</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt / line-height:150% / font-family: &quot / Times New Roman&quot / ,&quot / serif&quot / mso-bidi-font-family:&quot / Times New Roman&quot / mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi">The research design was primarily a case study of 16 Grade 10 learners of the Xhosa ethnic group at a high school in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The Xhosa people are a typical example of a people whose cultural values were undermined and whose voice was silenced by the colonisers and whose local knowledge has been repressed and replaced by forms of Western privileged knowledge and understandings but who remain, deeply and resolutely, steeped in their cultural values and practices, making them a classic example of a people who would battle to harmonise the indigenous and the scientific explanations of natural phenomena. The research instruments used were questionnaires which were administered to learners, educators, community leaders, indigenous knowledge holders and experts to solicit information on causes, dangers and prevention of lightning / individual and group activities as learners went through the lessons on both argumentation and on lightning / follow up interviews and discussions with learners individually or in groups to seek further clarification of the ideas the learners would have raised in their earlier responses to questionnaires or group discussions / guided and reflective essays by the learners to determine the learners&rsquo / levels of understanding of the major tenets of the two thought systems and the relationship between the two worldviews and to determine the qualitative gain, if any, that the learners got from the intervention programme / observation schedules used by the researcher during participant observation of group discussions and during the lessons on lightning / an achievement test on lightning / field notes used by the researcher for memoing observations and reflections as the research process proceeded / informal and serendipitous sources of information. <span style="font-size:12.0pt / line-height:150% / font-family: &quot / Times New Roman&quot / ,&quot / serif&quot / mso-bidi-font-family:&quot / Times New Roman&quot / mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi">The collected data were analysed, mostly, qualitatively. Frequencies, percentages and t-test values were used to express and analyse quantitative data. Aspects of several analytical frameworks that included Toulmin&rsquo / s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) [and its modified versions such as that of Leitao (2000) and that of Osborne et al (2004)] and Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) were used to attach meaning to the collected data and to address the research questions.</span></span></p>

Thèse numérisée par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal.

New Approaches to Legal Reasoning as Used in Case-Law - Summary The phenomenon of legal interpretation and argumentation theory has become increasingly popular in the Czech Republic. The thesis first aims to summarize theories (or methodologies) of three Anglo-Saxon scholars, Neil MacCormick, Ronald Dworkin and William N. Eskridge. In the thesis, three respective theoretic chapters are dedicated to theories of legal interpretation as presented by each of them. After exploring philosophic backgrounds of the theories briefly, main focus was put on sets of different interpretation methods and interpretive arguments these scholars find most relevant. Subsequently, I tried to analyse the arguments and to examine role different legal arguments play in the process of interpretation as described in works of the three scholars. Each theory is eventually explicated on a convenient law case mentioned in one of its author's books. The second aim of the thesis is to apply the theories as summarised in the theoretical part on Czech law cases to find out whether the theories are successfully applicable considering differences of Czech (continental) legal system and common-law-based legal orders as well as whether such application might prove helpful to a Czech law interpret. For that reason several important Czech "hard"...

Depuis le 11 septembre 2001, le terrorisme islamique a généré dans l’espace public médiatique un certain nombre de questions de débats au sujet desquelles les experts sont fréquemment invités, par les journalistes, à exprimer leurs points de vue. La thèse s’intéresse aux rapports que les journalistes entretiennent vis à vis des discours produits par ces experts, dont elle se propose d’interroger les formes de médiation. Deux corpus sont exploités: d’une part, un corpus de trois émissions de débats diffusées sur les chaines nationales publiques, requérant régulièrement le concours des experts, et couvrant les questions liées au terrorisme islamique pendant une période de cinq ans comprise entre la crise du 11 septembre et les attentats déjoués de Londres de la nuit du 9 au 10 août 2006 ; d’autre part, un corpus de journaux télévisés couvrant les dix premiers jours de la crise du 11 septembre 2001. Notre approche est double, sémio-pragmatique et argumentative. Dans une première partie, nous explorerons le contexte de débats sous-tendant l’intervention des experts puis, en considération de ce contexte, nous nous attacherons à qualifier les discours produits par ces experts, que nous proposerons d’appréhender en tant qu’objets de médiation. Dans une deuxième partie, nous analyserons les formes à travers lesquelles la médiation des discours experts se trouve assurée dans les émissions de débats et ce qu’elles révèlent des rapports que les journalistes entretiennent vis à vis des sources expertes. Dans une troisième partie, nous élargirons le champ de notre réflexion à l’analyse des formes de médiation des discours experts au journal télévisé, dans un contexte où la maîtrise du temps échappe aux journalistes / Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorism has generated many questions on which the experts are frequently invited by journalists to express their points of view. The thesis focuses on the relationship between journalists and discourse produced by these experts. Two corpuses are analyzed: firstly, three televised debate programs requiring the assistance of experts regularly, and covering questions related to Islamic terrorism for a period of five years between the crisis of September 11 and the attempted attacks in London on the night of 9 to 10 August 2006; secondly, a corpus of news programs covering the first ten days of the crisis of September 11, 2001. We are adopting a semio-pragmatique and argumentative approach. In the first part, we explore the context of debates underlying the intervention of experts, then, in consideration of this, we propose to qualify the discourse produced by these experts. In the second part, we analyze the forms through which expert discourse mediation is conducted in televised debate programs. In the third part, we analyze forms of mediation of the experts' discourses in news programs, in a context where the mastery of time escapes journalists

Thesis advisor: Katherine L. McNeill / Recent science education reform documents and standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), call for school science to better reflect authentic scientific endeavors by highlighting the centrality of students engaging in science practices. This dissertation study focuses specifically on argumentation (through the modality of talk), one of the eight science practices emphasized in the NGSS. Although extensively studied, argumentation rarely occurs in classrooms. The absence of this science practice in classrooms is partly due to the student-driven exchanges required by argumentation differing greatly from the interactions that occur during traditional instruction, where students primarily speak to and through the teacher. To transform the type of talk that occurs in science classrooms it is necessary to examine discourse patterns, as well as the roles classroom members take on, in order to identify and develop strategies that can facilitate the shift in discourse norms. This dissertation employs a mixed-methods approach, using social network analysis (SNA), multiple case study methodology, and discourse analysis (DA), to deeply examine video recordings of three middle school classrooms engaged in argumentation through a science seminar (a type of whole class debate). Findings from the SNA highlight the importance of argumentation research integrating a focus on argument structure with dialogic interactions, and point to the benefits of using multiple types of representations to capture engagement in this science practice. Furthermore, examining the manner by which teachers articulated student expectations and goals for the argumentation activity suggest the need to continue supporting teachers in developing and using rich instructional strategies to help students with the dialogic component of argumentation. Additionally, this work sheds light on the importance of how teachers frame the goals for student engagement in this science practice, specifically as being either individual goals or communal goals. Lastly, findings from the DA stress the relationship between discourse patterns and interactional norms, and also suggest the need to expand our perspectives of who can prompt for critique during an argumentation activity.

Läroplanen för grundskolan lyfter debatt och argumentationskunskaper i såväl övergripande mål samt specifika mål för olika ämnen. Flera forskare diskuterar debatt och argumentationsstrategier som viktiga faktorer i utvecklandet av demokratiska individer, något som skolan strävar efter. Vidare lyfts problem med lärare och elevers osäkerhet inför denna form av undervisning tillika så problem kring skillnader i hur flickor och pojkar presterar i klassrumssamtal. Följande studie presenterar en undersökning gjord i två klasser, årskurs åtta och nio, där vi observerat elevers argumentationsstrategier i debattsammanhang. Syftet har varit att undersöka elevers argumentationsstrategier i debattsammanhang ur ett genusperspektiv. Studien visar att det inte råder stora skillnader mellan flickor och pojkars argumentationsstrategier men att dessa skillnader är många. Skillnaderna visar på att flickor hamnar i positionen som The Other vilket skapar en fördel för pojkar. Detta förstärks i sin tur då skillnaderna mellan de två grupperna vid första anblicken inte är tydliga. Vidare diskuteras även lärares osäkerhet inom ämnet debatt och hur detta i sin tur påverkar eleverna. / Program: Lärarutbildningen

In this thesis, a model for argument revision is presented, in terms of the expansion and contraction of a system of structured argumentation. At its core, the model uses the belief revision concept of minimal change, but without requiring a pre-determined entrenchment ordering to establish minimality. In the first part of the thesis, a model for argument revision is defined and described. Specified in terms of the ASPIC\+ framework for argumentation, the model is divided into two main concepts: argument expansion, whose goal is to make certain arguments acceptable in the system, possibly by adding them; and argument contraction, whose goal is to make certain arguments unacceptable in the system, possibly by removing them. The goal of a revision process can be achieved in multiple different ways, thus a method of choosing which, based on measures of minimal change, is also specified. The second part of the thesis demonstrates two applications of the model in the context of multi-agent dialogue. The first is used to assist a participant when faced with a need to update its commitment store during persuasion dialogue, while the second shows how a participant can use argument revision techniques to both assess and maintain a lie.The main contributions of the thesis are twofold. First, the characterisation of a model for argument revision, based on established belief revision principles but with a key difference. The model for argument revision demonstrates how it is possible to use measurable effects on the system when determining minimal change instead of relying on a pre-determined, qualitative entrenchment ordering.Second, the thesis demonstrates two applications of argument revision in dialogue. The first is in assisting an agent in retracting a commitment that has been defeated, and for which it can offer no defence. When retracting a claim, the participant may also be required to retract other claims from which the defeated one is a consequence. Applying argument revision techniques allow the participant to reason about what constitutes a minimal set of retractions, in terms of current commitments and potential future communications in the dialogue.The second dialogical application relates to the opposite of retraction; instead of choosing to retract an undefended claim, the participant could instead choose to lie in order to defend it. Argument revision allows the participant to not only assess whether or not lying is ``minimal'' (compared to retracting), but to also to maintain the lie, by using the measures of minimal change.Overall, the thesis shows that not only is justifiable argument revision possible without relying on a pre-determined entrenchment ordering, it is also a powerful tool for participants in a dialogue, assisting with dialogue move selection.

Issue d'une réflexion sur la langue et sur les opérations de la traduction, cette thèse essaie de mettre en parallèle différentes visions de la traduction avec celles de la langue, en particulier la Théorie de l'Argumenation Dans la Langue (ADL) d'Anscombre et Ducrot et sa version radicale: la Théorie des Blocs Sémantiques (TBS) de Carel. Il s'agit de comprendre une notion principale de la traduction: la fidélité au sens; d'où l'intérêt d'introduire une théorie du sens, le débat autour des critères de la traduction dépendant des images que nous avons sur le sens, et de regarder la traduction dans le cadre d'une approche argumentative de la langue. Nous voudrions chercher dans cette thèse à prolonger la réfelxion sur les critères de la bonne traduction et à vérifier si le fait d'être référentiel/non référentiel touche la traduction du discours et son organisation. C'est pourquoi nous remontons dans l'histoire de la traduction de l'antiquité au XXI e siècle et disséquons le processus de la traduction en différentes phases autour de la notion de fidélité. Ensuite, nous vérifions la réflexion sur le langage, autour des notions de significations/sens et d'argumentation et éclairons les liens entre la traduction et le TBS. Enfin, à travers l'analyse linguistique comparative d'exemples portant sur l'analyse lexicale, sur les temps grammaticaux, et sur les fonctions sémantiques, nous essayons de déterminer comment la TBS répond d"une certaine manière à la question de la trahison de la traduction. / From a reflection on the language and on the transfer operations, this thesis tries to put parallel the different visions of the translation and those of the language, in particular the Theory of Argumentation In the language (ADL) of Anscombre and Ducrot and its radical version: The Theory of Semantic Blocks (TBS) Of Carel.We try to prouve that the central notion of translation is that of fidelity in the meaning from which comes the interest of introducing a theory of meaning, because the debate of the criteria of translation depends on the images we have on the meaning. We take an argumentative approach of the language in the translation and try to prolong the reflection on criteria of good translation. We will also justify whether the fact of being referential / non-referential affects the production of discourse and its organization. In order to do this, we go back to the history of translation from antiquity to the twenty-first century and dissect the process of translation into different phases around the notion of fidelity. We verify the reflection on language especially the notions of meaning and illuminate the links between translation and TBS. Finally, through comparative linguistic analysis of examples of lexical analysis, grammatical time, and semantic functions, an attempt is made to determine how TBS responds in a certain way to the question of betrayal of the translation.

The aim of this Master's Thesis is the study of frequency of contraargumentative connectors in Spanish, based on the quantitative analysis of these cohesive devices in argumentative texts. The theoretical part follows and draws from the works of renowned Spanish linguists and introduces the reader to the issue of discourse markers. Thus, different proposals for its definition and classification are taken in consideration, then are described the fundamental characteristics of the contraargumentative connectors. These are examined later in the practical part. Divided into chapters it offers focus on the quantitative analysis of the connectors in three corpuses which are comprised of judgments, academic writings and editorials. For greater clarity, analyses are accompanied by graphs and frequency tables. A Czech summary is added at the end of this investigation.

In order to understand the influences that instructors and course materials have on student argumentation and conceptual understanding of thermodynamics I analyzed three cases studies of two instructors’ implementation of the Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) thermodynamic materials. The POGIL approach is designed to help students learn chemistry while encouraging the development of process skills such as communication and critical thinking. These materials are designed in accordance with the theory of constructivism and include learning cycles to help students’ work together to construct an understanding of chemistry content. However, the facilitation of the materials can vary by instructor and impact student learning. Two aspects of student learning that I was interested in was argumentation and coordination between the macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic levels of chemistry. I was interested in argumentation because this is a common form of communication in science and students need to learn how to support their claims using reliable evidence. Furthermore, chemistry can be viewed in terms the macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic levels, but in order to develop a complete understanding of a concept, one needs to understand the concept at all three levels. Therefore it is important for students to be able to use all three levels of reasoning and make connections between levels. Using discourse analysis I was able to examine how students’ reasoned through and developed an understanding of thermodynamics. By analyzing the student-instructor interactions and course materials I was able determine how these two aspects of a POGIL learning environment influenced students’ use of scientific argumentation and coordination of macroscopic symbolic, and sub-microscopic level reasoning. Data was collected by recording and transcribing student-instructor interactions and conversations from all three cases studies. Analysis involved the coding of classroom transcripts to identify arguments and the instructor’s discursive moves. This revealed how the students constructed arguments and how the instructor was able to encourage student argumentation. Next the arguments, instructor discourse, and course materials were analyzed in terms of macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic level reasoning. This enabled me to better understand how students’ used information they were presented with by the instructor and materials in their arguments. Lastly, the POGIL materials were analyzed to see how the design of the materials and the nature of the question prompts impacted student argumentation. It was found that both the instructor and the course materials impact students’ use of macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic level reasoning in their arguments. Instructors could use questioning moves to help scaffold student argumentation and encourage students to build connections between the macroscopic, symbolic, and sub-microscopic level. In addition, the materials emphasized symbolic level reasoning and many questions do not encourage students to explain their reasoning behind their answers.