La recherche menée dans cette thèse traite du discours de l’Union européenne sur l’espace judiciaire européen entre 1996 et 1999. En convoquant l’analyse du discours et la lexicométrie dans un cadre théorique de la sémantique argumentative, elle analyse le sens des mots autour de l’expression « espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice ». L’objectif est de définir comment s’élabore la réappropriation de valeurs universelles au profit du discours et de l’identité européenne véhiculée par les procédés argumentatifs utilisés pour représenter l’espace judiciaire européen. Le contexte politique et les théories linguistiques de la méthode d’analyse exposés, cette thèse porte sur les conditions de communication du discours et de sa particularité sémantique, en montrant qu’il construit une identité en triade renvoyant aux trois valeurs de son emblème triptyque (« liberté, sécurité et justice ») :les institutions, la criminalité organisée et les citoyens. Elle révèle les indices linguistiques de cette construction identitaire avec ses enjeux politiques et de légitimation en introduisant la notion de « normalisation discursive ». Celle-ci adopte un schéma linguistique très marqué conduisant à la mise en œuvre d’un processus de « manipulation argumentative » défini et démontré dans ce travail. Les résultats illustrent que la normalisation et la manipulation engendrent une circularité du discours reposant sur le conflit de deux orientations discursives :celle d’un discours sécuritaire et celle d’un discours sur l’État de droit et la démocratie.<p><p>This thesis studies the discourse of the European Union about the European Judicial Network between 1996 and 1999. Using discourse analysis and lexicometrics within the theoretical framework of argumentative semantics, it explores the meaning of words associated with the expression of « area of freedom, security and justice ». The research mainly aims at understanding how the discourse reappropriate universal values in order to construct, through argumentative processes, a European identity that embodies the European Judicial Network. After presenting the political context and the linguistic theories used in the analysis methods, the thesis examines the conditions of discourse production and its semantic particularities. It argues that the discourse constructs an identity based on the values (liberty, security and justice) conveyed by the three pillars of the European Judicial Network :institutions, organised crime and citizens. The thesis then puts forward the idea of a “discursive normalisation” that helps, through its linguistic forms, to legitimate the identity construction and its political issues. It also defines a process of “argumentative manipulation” resulting from this “discursive normalisation” implementing a very distinctive linguistic frame. According to those results, the research concludes that normalisation and manipulation generate circularity of the discourse, which is based on the conflict between two discursive orientations, on the one hand security and on the other hand democracy and the Rule of law. / Doctorat en philosophie et lettres, Orientation langue et littérature / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

The topic of the present dissertation is argumentation in the late statesman Olof Palme (1927-1986). One may reasonably think that the fascination for Palme is mainly due to his way of expressing his policy, and therefore also to his argumentation strategy. The theoretical background consists of Lloyd F. Bitzers’s theory on the rhetorical situation, Stephen E. Toulmin’s theory on the description of argumentation structures and on the notion of fallacy, as it appears in pragma-dialectics and informal logic. The rhetorical situation is used to identify vital presuppositions and conditions surrounding the analysed argumentation.Toulmin’s theoretical model is used to analyse structures in the argumentation, and the notion of fallacy is used to discover infringements upon these structures. The object of this analysis is the decisive electoral debates of autumn 1976 between Olof Palme and Thorbjörn Fälldin, held in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. Palme had to think of a number of surrounding conditions, such as that the debate was decisive, the composition of the audience. Palme and Fälldin otherwise appeared to be rather equally equipped for the debate. Palme’s task was primarily to gain the number of votes needed to continue to keep social democracy in power. There seem to exist several levels making up his argumentation, grouped under attack and defence. Defence is in most cases based upon a strong connection with the social democrat tradition. The attack is more complicated, linked to Palme’s overall argumentative intention: to depict the non-socialists as a bad governing alternative, and the social democrats as a better one. Fallacies are regarded as instances of breaking the frame of rules that govern a critical discussion. Palme has several fallacy-like features in his argumentation. Among those, most common, are that he attacks the person Thorbjörn Fälldin, instead of the policy or party that he represents. Palme also starts from presupposed premises and tries to link the economic policy of the alliance to an intellectually-thought delimiting between liberal and conservative capitalism and social-democrat solidarity. He strives to portray the liberals and conservatives as money-orientated, whereas social democracy is depicted as people-orientated.Palme goes arguably too far at several moments during the debate,which possibly hurts his own argumentation. / Innehåller en 20-sidig utskrift från radions P1 från duellen mellan Palme och Fälldin i Göteborg den 1 sept 1976.

Cette thèse a pour objet de décrire l’argumentation des élèves dans dix « cafés scientifiques » sur l’eau potable ayant eu lieu en 2011-2012 dans quatre écoles au Mexique, aux USA et en France. Il s’agit d’environnements éducatifs semi-formels (activité organisée à l’école mais extracurriculaire). Cette démarche est détaillée dans une première partie, avec la présentation des divers ancrages théoriques qui l’ont inspirée, issus de la linguistique interactionnelle, des études de l’argumentation, et de plusieurs traditions de recherches en éducation ; puis la définition des principales questions de recherche ; et enfin une présentation détaillée du corpus d’analyse.Au niveau mésoscopique, est proposée dans la partie II une analyse de la qualité des interactions lors du travail en petits groupes d’élèves, inspirée de la typologie des types de discours de Mercer (1996). Le discours d’exploration est appréhendé à partir de 5 indicateurs adaptés à la situation pédagogique, et attesté dans les trois pays. Ses frontières avec le discours d’accumulation et le discours de dispute sont précisées. Enfin, l’ensemble de la typologie est questionnée et affinée, à l’aune de cas problématiques interrogeant les unités d’analyse pertinentes et l’alternance entre les différents types de discours. La partie III analyse plutôt le travail de construction des arguments par les élèves, à l’échelle microscopique, à partir de trois grands types de ressources : savoirs, principes généraux incluant lois, normes et valeurs, et émotions. Un relevé exhaustif des éléments de savoir-croyance et des principes généraux utilisés par les élèves est réalisé. Est ensuite proposé un modèle du recours à ces principes dans l’interaction argumentative, inspiré de celui de la structure conversationnelle de l’argumentation de Muntigl et Turnbull (1998). Enfin, trois études de cas donnent à voir le fonctionnement discursif de la mobilisation des émotions à des fins argumentatives, à partir d’outils proposés par Plantin (2011). Dans la partie IV, à l’échelle macroscopique, les dix débats réalisés sur les différents terrains sont comparés. Le cadrage du débat est caractérisé sur le plan de l’orientation thématique vers des domaines de savoir et celui de la préférence pour certains modèles cognitifs de l’eau. Est également étudiée la façon dont les élèves construisent l’objet de discours « eau » et le présentent préférentiellement sous certains éclairages (Grize, 1990, 1996), phénomène analysé à l’aide d’outils textométriques. Les résultats des votes d’opinion individuels et par groupe réalisés tout au long des débats sont enfin présentés. L’ensemble de ces éléments (11-14) convergent pour décrire le travail discursif des élèves comme l’activation et le renforcement de scenarios d’affrontement entre argumentaires typiques. Ainsi, chaque sous-corpus national se caractérise par un scenario argumentatif propre, qui domine les débats, même si d’autres scenarios, minoritaires, cohabitent avec lui.Finalement, ce travail offre un modèle cohérent de l’argumentation des élèves, qui permet de caractériser à différents niveaux ces scenarios argumentatifs. / This thesis aims at describing students’ argumentation in ten « scientific cafés » about drinking water organized in 2011-2012 in Mexico, the USA and France. These events can be characterized as a semi-formal educational context (at school but an extra-curricular activity). Part I begins with a literature review of theoretical backgrounds in interactional linguistics, argumentation studies, and education research. The main research questions and the empirical data used in the study are then presented.Part II reports an analysis of the quality of students’ interactions at the mesoscopic level, while they are working in small groups, based on Mercer’s talk typology (1996). Exploratory talk is evidenced in each of the three countries, and is analyzed with 5 indicators taking into account the specificities of the pedagogical situation. The boundaries between exploratory talk, cumulative talk and disputational talk are discussed. The whole typology is refined, with the presentation of problematic atypical cases, raising the issues of the relevant unit of analysis and the alternation between different types of talk. Part III consists of an analysis of students’ work of building up their arguments at the microscopic level. To do so, they use 3 types of resources: knowledge, general principles (including laws, norms and values), and emotions. An inventory of the knowledge-belief elements and general principles used by the students is presented. An interactional model of the argumentative use of these general principles is then proposed, based on Muntigl and Turnbull’s model of the conversational structure of argumentation (1998). Finally, three case studies describe the role of emotions in students’ argumentation, using Plantin’s conceptual and methodological tools (2011).In the last chapter, Part IV, the ten debates are analyzed and compared at the macroscopic level. They are characterized by their tendency for orientation of the discourse towards disciplinary knowledge fields and their preference for certain cognitive models of water over others. There is also an analysis of how the students build « water » as a discourse object (“objet de discours”), and present it in specific lights (“éclairage”) (Grize, 1990, 1996). This analysis depends notably on the use of textometric tools. Results of individual and group opinion votes during the cafés are also presented. These three sets of results converge to give a global picture of students’ discursive work as the activation and strengthening of typical scenarios of opposing arguments. Each national sub-corpus has a specific, preferred argumentative scenario, which dominates the debates, even though there are alternative minority scenarios coexisting with the dominant scheme.In summary, this thesis offers a coherent model of students’ argumentation, and permits the characterization of such argumentative scenarios at different levels.

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.

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2016-07-20T11:32:37Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo total.pdf: 17599967 bytes, checksum: cb2c0f5624933bb75b6adac7eb251e41 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-07-20T11:32:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo total.pdf: 17599967 bytes, checksum: cb2c0f5624933bb75b6adac7eb251e41 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-08-28 / In order to building a spoken or written text, regardless of gender that it is being carried out, the speaker uses linguistic features such as semantic-argumentative strategies intending to guide the interlocutor to certain conclusions. The modalization and polyphony, accordingly, are phenomena that allow the speaker to leave printed his subjectivity in the content of the statements, while acting according to his interlocutor. Focusing in these discussions, this investigation aims to show that modalization and polyphony reveal, linguistically, subjectivity in the digest genre, acting therefore as argumentation features. It is a qualitative research, descriptive and interpretative, which adopts the theoretical and methodological principles of Argumentative Semantics. The corpus consists of ten digests collected in six editions of the Jornal de Resenhas, of the Discurso Editorial, ISSN 1984-6282, published in 2009, 2010 and 2012. The theoretical discussions concerning the Argumentation Theory of Language have based in Ducrot (1994, 1987, 1988), Espíndola (2004), Nascimento (2005, 2009), Koch (2006a, 2006b) and others arguing about the theory approach. The modalization is discussed under the postulates of Castilho and Castilho (1993), Koch (2006b), Cervoni (1989), Nascimento (2009), Neves (2011a), Palmer (2011) and García Negroni (2011). Besides, it was used as theoretical basis, Foucault (2011), Bakhtin (2010a, 2010b), Marcuschi (2008) and others to the formulations about the digest genre. The analysis reveals that digesters use modalization and the polyphony of speakers as phenomena that ultimately report the speakers‟ subjectivity in relation to the view of the voices of other speakers, that is, as a discursive strategy that guides the way the text of the digest should be read. Thus, the gender digest is defined as a place of interaction of voices and subjective impressions through which the speaker summarizes praises, criticizes and evaluates the most diverse academic intellectual productions. / Pour construire un texte parlé ou écrit, indépendamment du genre qui réalise, le locuteur utilise des fonctionnalités linguistiques comme les stratégies sémantiques argumentatif afin de guider les appelants à certaines conclusions. La modalisation et la polyphonie, en conséquence, sont des phénomènes qui permettent au locuteur laisser imprimé sa subjectivité dans le contenu des déclarations, tout en agissant en fonction de son interlocuteur. Avec l'accent dans ces discussions, cette recherche vise à ètidier les annonceurs de modalité et de la polyphonie, comme des phénomènes qui révèlent, linguistiquement, la subjectivité dans le genre compte-rendu, s‟agissant, de cette manière, comme des marques d'argumentation. Il est une recherche qualitative, descriptive et interprétative, qui adopte les principes théoriques et méthodologiques de la sémantique argumentative. Le corpus se compose de dix comptes-rendus dans six éditions du Jornal de Resenhas, imprimés par Discurso Editorial, ISSN 1984-6282, publiés en 2009, 2010 et 2012. Pour les discussions théoriques en concernant a la Théorie de L'argumentation de la Langue, nous fundamentons-nous en Ducrot (1994, 1987, 1988), Espíndola (2004), Nascimento (2005, 2009), Koch (2006a, 2006b) et d'autres qui discutent à propos de l'approche de la théorie. La modalisation est discuté sous les postulats de Castilho et Castilho (1993), Koch (2006b), Cervoni (1989), Nascimeto (2009), Neves (2011a), Palmer (2011) et García Negroni (2011). Et on utilise encore comme une base théorique, Foucault (2011), Bakhtin (2010a, 2010b), Marcuschi (2008) et d'autres pour les formulations sur la révision de genre. L'analyse révèle que les examinateurs utilisent la modalisation et la polyphonie des haut-parleurs comme des phénomènes qui relèvent finalement la subjectivité des intervenants des examens par rapport à la vue de la voix des autres orateurs, qui est, comme une stratégie qui guide discoursivement le chemin du texte de comme l'avis doit être lu. Le genre compte-rendu, dans cette recherche est considérée comme un lieu d'interaction des voix et impressions subjectives ainsi à travers laquelle l'orateur résume louanges, critique et évalue plus diverses productions intellectuelles academiques. / Ao construir um texto falado ou escrito, independente do gênero que o realize, o locutor se utiliza de recursos linguísticos como estratégias semântico-argumentativas com a finalidade de orientar o interlocutor para determinadas conclusões. A modalização e a polifonia, nesse sentido, são fenômenos que possibilitam ao locutor deixar impressa a sua subjetividade no conteúdo dos enunciados, ao mesmo tempo em que age em função de seu interlocutor. Com o foco nessa discussão, esta pesquisa objetiva investigar a modalização e a polifonia de locutores como fenômenos que revelam, linguisticamente, a subjetividade no gênero resenha acadêmico-científica, funcionando, portanto, como marcas de argumentação. Trata-se de uma investigação qualitativa, de caráter descritivo e interpretativista, que adota os princípios teórico-metodológicos da Semântica Argumentativa. O corpus é constituído de dez resenhas, coletadas em seis edições do Jornal de Resenhas, da Discurso Editorial, ISSN 1984-6282, publicadas nos anos de 2009, 2010 e 2012. Para as discussões teóricas concernentes à Teoria da Argumentação na Língua, embasamo-nos em Ducrot (1994, 1987, 1988), Espíndola (2004), Nascimento (2005, 2009), Koch (2006a, 2006b) entre outros que discutem a respeito da teoria em abordagem. A modalização é discutida sob os postulados de Castilho e Castilho (1993), Koch (2006b), Cervoni (1989), Nascimento (2009), Neves (2011a), Palmer (2011) e García Negroni (2011). Ainda servem de embasamento teórico, Foucault (2011), Bakhtin (2010a, 2010b), Marcuschi (2008) e outros, para as formulações acerca do gênero textual resenha. As análises revelam que os resenhistas utilizam a modalização e a polifonia de locutores como fenômenos que acabam por denunciar a subjetividade dos locutores das resenhas em relação ao ponto de vista das vozes de outros locutores, ou seja, como uma estratégia que orienta discursivamente a forma como o texto da resenha deve ser lido. O gênero resenha, nesta investigação, é visto como um lugar de interação de vozes e, portanto, de impressões subjetivas, através do qual o locutor resume, elogia, critica e avalia as mais diversas produções intelectuais acadêmicas.