Congruent with the second wave of feminism and continuing into the 1990s, a group of feminist compositionists felt that argument should not have a major, if any, place in the feminist classroom and began to redefine, revision, and reposition argument. With a rhetorician’s bias, this report looks at one articulation of why they turned away from argument—Sally Miller Gearhart’s claim that “any intent to persuade is an act of violence”—, what they turned to, some critique surrounding their approaches and theories, and how a broader understanding of rhetoric and the role of agonism in rhetoric and education can add depth to the feminist approach. / text

This paper investigates the mechanism for nominative/accusative Case alternations in the siph-ta ‘want-to’ construction in Korean. I argue that the Case alternations in the Korean siph-ta construction are motivated by the peculiar property of siph- that it has dual argument structures and restructuring properties. Specifically, the structural Case on the embedded object is determined by 1) the type of the matrix vP that siph- takes—vP(DO) or vP(BE) - and 2) the presence/absence of the functional category responsible for accusative Case checking, which is selected by the matrix predicate siph-. In so doing, it is demonstrated that the dual argument structure analysis can be extended to account for the same type of Case alternations exhibited by Korean psych-verbs as well as the incompatibility between a nominative object and an embedded psych-verb in the siph-ta construction.

This doctoral dissertation reports on results from three explorative case studies of teacher assessment practice within upper secondary school writing instruction. In Sweden, almost all responsibility for constructing, administering, and scoring assessments lies with the individual teacher. Unfortunately, little is known about classroom-based writing assessment and even less is known about the validity of such assessment. The aim of this dissertation is to build validity arguments based on classroom assessment practice concerning achievement tests in upper secondary school. Three research questions were formulated in relation to this aim: (1): To what extent can interpretation of scores be argued for? (2): To what extent can students be said to have had equal opportunities to learn what is later assessed? (3) To what extent can suggested and observed usage of scores be argued for, given the relationship between instruction and assessment?   The data for the studies consists of audio recorded observations, student texts, teacher comments, and scoring rubrics, and was gathered within writing units in three upper secondary schools. Altogether the observations comprise 17 lessons (or 19.6 hours). Data was also collected in interviews with three teachers and their students. The data on instructed and assessed writing was analyzed by conceptual tools related to a theoretical model of writing, the so-called Writing Wheel. The validity argument was built using Bachman’s (2005) Assessment Use Argument (AUA) model. On an aggregated level, the results indicate threats to the validity of interpretation of scores, to the validity of usage of scores, and threats associated with inequitable assessment. The first types of threats stem, for example, from scoring rubrics that are not aligned to the assessment tasks at hand, and a low degree of standardization in the administration of the assessment tasks. The second type of threat is related to this; for example, low standardization led to incomparable student marks. While some students could benefit from contacts with able peers (and/or parents) others could not. The third type relates to possibilities to learn what is later assessed, which was not fully evident in some cases. Finally, the results also implicate that the building of an AUA can serve as a syllabus-design tool for practitioners as well as a design tool in intervention studies. The closing chapter of the dissertation presents a number of hypotheses based on the case study findings. Concluding remarks suggest how these could be tested.

My overall claim in this paper is twofold: Firstly, the activity of developing arguments in favour of the existence of the Christian God is tenable and worthwhile and, secondly, the “infinite God objection” fails to undermine the kalam cosmological argument. Concerning the former, it is often claimed that the very activity of developing arguments in favour of God’s existence is futile. I argue, however, that such theistic arguments play an important role in the philosophy of religion, natural theology, and apologetics. Concerning the latter claim, I will attempt to show how the infinite God objection fails to undermine a notable theistic argument, namely, the kalam cosmological argument. As regards this objection, the proponents of the kalam cosmological argument face a dilemma – either an actual infinity cannot exist or God’s knowledge cannot be infinite. More specifically, this objection claims that God’s omniscience entails the existence of an actual infinity with God knowing an actual infinite number of future events and mathematical truths. My solution to this problem is that (1) God’s omniscience should be understood as maximal knowledge; (2) the existence of abstract objects (such as numbers and propositions) should be denied; and (3) God’s knowledge is non-propositional in nature. / MPhil, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

In this study we explored some of the factors associated with biased processing of attitude-relevant information. We were particularly interested in the possibility that a self-affirmation, by reducing self-evaluative concerns, might increase participants' willingness to impartially evaluate information that conflicts with their current views. We examined students' reactions to arguments about increasing tuition as a function of four factors: attitude importance, argument strength, the congruence of arguments with existing attitudes, and our experimental manipulation of affirmation. We found that affirmation reduced biased evaluation only for participants who rated the issue as important. We also found that affirmation dramatically impacted the perception of argument strength. Stronger counterattitudinal arguments were rejected by non-affirmed participants, who did not distinguish them from weak arguments, presumably because of the esteem threat posed by a strong ideological challenge. Affirmed participants, though, evaluated strong counterattitudinal arguments more positively.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Durante as duas últimas décadas a discussão a respeito do papel da argumentação no ensino de ciências vem se destacando em vários países. No Brasil são ainda escassos os estudos dedicados à temática, especialmente com relação ao ensino de química. Vários pesquisadores afirmam que a sua prática pode favorecer a compreensão de conceitos científicos, o desenvolvimento do pensamento crítico e o entendimento sobre a natureza da ciência pelos alunos. No presente trabalho investigamos aspectos relacionados à elaboração e aplicação de oficinas de formação sobre a argumentação, tendo em vista o entendimento das suas contribuições na preparação e implementação, por parte dos licenciandos, de projetos de regência que fomentem a sua manifestação no ensino básico de química. Procuramos também analisar as características de argumentos produzidos pelos licenciandos na busca de explicações para a ocorrência de um fenômeno natural e identificar se valorizam a argumentação na prática pedagógica. Lançamos mão do Modelo de Argumentação de Sampson e Blanchard para analisar as características dos argumentos produzidos pelos licenciandos durante o processo de formação e verificamos que estes, em sua maioria, não apresentam todos os elementos esperados em uma argumentação científica, de acordo com o referido Modelo. Para avaliarmos em que medida os licenciandos valorizam a argumentação como uma alternativa para melhorar o ensino e a aprendizagem de ciências nos pautamos na análise dos projetos de regência elaborados e de entrevistas semiestruturadas realizadas ao final do processo. As estratégias e objetivos adotados na elaboração dos projetos se mostraram alinhados com aqueles enfatizados nas oficinas de formação e os depoimentos prestados revelaram indícios de valorização da argumentação por parte dos licenciandos. Analisamos ainda as regências com a finalidade de investigar a forma como os licenciandos se apropriam do discurso argumentativo e realizam ações pró-argumentação, assim como a possível influência do processo de formação na adoção de tal postura. Nas regências dos licenciandos identificamos ações desencadeadoras de processos argumentativos, como posicionar-se na construção dos argumentos e justificar com evidências. Estas ações sugerem a influência e as contribuições das oficinas no planejamento e execução das regências, uma vez que nas oficinas os licenciandos participaram de atividades cujos objetivos residiam, principalmente, no oferecimento de estratégias de ensino promotoras da argumentação e na caracterização da argumentação e distinção entre os diferentes componentes que constituem um argumento. Os resultados indicaram a relevância do processo de formação e proporcionaram subsídios para a análise e reflexão sobre o potencial da argumentação na prática educativa em química. / Over the last two decades, the discussion concerning the role of argumentation in science teaching has come to the forefront in various countries. In Brazil, there are still few studies regarding this subject, especially in relation to chemistry teaching. Various researchers state that its practice can help students understand scientific concepts, develop critical thinking and understand the nature of science. In this thesis, we investigate aspects related to developing and running training workshops on argumentation, with a view to understanding pre-service teachers´ contributions in the preparation and implementation of conducting projects which foment argumentation in chemistry teaching. We also attempted to analyse the characteristics of arguments produced by pre-service teachers to look for explanations for the occurrence of a natural phenomenon and identify if they value argumentation in the pedagogical practice. We lay hold of the Argumentation Model proposed by Sampson and Blanchard to analyse characteristics of the arguments produced by the pre-service teachers during the training process and observed that, on the whole, they do not present all the elements expected in scientific argumentation, according to the aforementioned model. In order to evaluate the extent to which the pre-service teachers value argumentation as an alternative to improve science teaching and learning, we used as a base the analysis of the developed projects and semi-structured interviews carried out at the end of the process. The strategies and objectives adopted in the projects development showed to be compatible with those emphasized in the training workshops and the testimonies given showed evidence of the pre-service teachers valuing argumentation. Furthermore, we analysed the dominion provided by the pre-service teachers so as to investigate the way the pre-service teachers take control of the argumentative discourse and take pro-argumentation actions, as well as the possible influence of the training process in adopting such a posture. When the pre-service teachers took command, we identified triggering actions of argumentative processes, such as positioning oneself when putting forward arguments and giving reasons based on evidence. These actions suggest the influence and contributions from the workshops in planning and taking command, as in the workshops the pre-service teachers took part in activities whose objectives were mainly to offer teaching strategies to encourage argumentation and argumentation characterisation, as well as distinguishing between the different components that comprise an argument. The results showed the importance of the training process and provided a basis to analyse and reflect on the potential aspect of argumentation in the educational practice in chemistry.

In the century or so that syllogisms have received the attention of psychologists, their interpretation both as and within particular types of discourse has been largely downplayed. A significant element in the guidance of interpretation is information structure as expressed in prosody. This thesis explores the role of intonation in syllogistic discourse and its effect on reasoning. A theoretical analysis of the information structures of syllogisms is presented which produces two classes of intonation patterns, the 'contextually concordant' (CC) and the 'contextually neutral' (CN), putatively corresponding to two discourse types. These are then investigated in a series of experiments. The initial observational study aims at confirming the use and significance of CC and CN patterns in a syllogism solving task. The remaining two experiments employ a purpose-built voice synthesiser to investigate the effects of imposing CC and CN contours on premises, first in a syllogism solving task and then in a syllogism evaluation task. The results show that both CC and CN intonation patterns are indeed used by participants and bear a systematic relationship to both the number and accuracy of conclusions they draw. When used in the presentation of syllogisms, however, these patterns do not influence the production of conclusions, only the evaluation of them. It is therefore argued that the discourse types to which they relate depend upon whether the syllogism is interpreted as a proof or as a problem. Further work based on these findings could aim to probe the informational links between conclusions and premises and thereby elucidate the coherence of arguments.

Ce travail s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une analyse argumentative du discours satirique chez un auteur du dixième siècle, Abû Hayyân al-Tawhidi. Bien que son livre, La satire des deux vizirs, (paru après sa mort) soit représenté dans les critiques classiques et modernes comme une pure et simple démarche vindicative du savant courroucé, privé des mannes de deux éminents vizirs, cette étude vise à en souligner la portée multifonctionnelle. La satire, en tant qu'élément essentiel parmi les composants de l’identité arabe fondée, comme on le rappellera, sur les mœurs, constitue le noyau d'une démarche argumentative fortement tributaire de l'idée de la conformité, fondamentale dans la culture arabo-musulmane. En effet la norme est la pierre angulaire de deux processus argumentatifs polarisés, dans le discours de Tawhîdî, ayant pour objectif un changement de représentation chez l'auditeur-lecteur : le premier tente d'entacher l'image des deux vizirs, le deuxième œuvre à construire une image personnelle telle qu'elle est élaborée par l'auteur. Ces deux représentations sont analysées à la lumière des notions clés dans la pensée arabe comme la vérité et l'argument, tantôt sacralisés tantôt rationnalisés. Elles dépendent fortement des critères intellectuels et sociaux d'une époque en proie à des mutations radicales qui conduisent à une opposition totale entre les vizirs et Tawhîdî, comme représentant d'une minorité savante discriminée. Aussi, à partir de cette place et de ce rôle qu'il se représente, la volonté de l'auteur est de construire, par des mécanismes d'analogie et d'amplification, des arguments relevant de l'ethos, du pathos ou plus largement du logos. Non seulement ces deux mécanismes miment des démarches par lesquelles l'esprit humain accède à la connaissance, mais elles représentent, selon nous, non pas des pratiques paralogiques manipulatrices mais une voie d'expression, la seule possible en temps de crise, comme l'affirment certains théoriciens de l'identité. / This study is part of an argumentative analysis of a satirical speech of the tenth century. Although the latter is represented in classical and modern critics as a simple vindictive approach of a scientist angry and deprived of bonanzas by two viziers, this study aims to demonstrate a more complex and multifunctional range. Satire, a core component of Arab identity since pre-Islamic times, was used to criticize and judge those who did not conform to fundamental Arab Muslim cultural values. In fact, these values are the cornerstone of two polarized argumentative processes in Tawhîdî speech that aim to change the listener-reader's point of view: the first attempts to tarnish the image of the two viziers while the second tries to embellish his own image. These two views are analyzed in light of the key concepts in the Arab thought as truth and argument, sometimes sacralised other times rationalized. They rely heavily on intellectual and social criteria of an era plagued by radical changes that lead to discord between the viziers, who were the representatives of the non-Arab governing power, and Tawhîdî, who represented the discriminated Arab minority. Therefore, from this position, the will of the author is to create a new reality, by analogy and amplification mechanisms, relying on arguments of ethos, pathos and logos to act on the mind of the reader/listener. These two approaches mimic the actions by which the human mind comprehends and reacts to reality. In fact, they do not represent, in our view, manipulative fallacies but are a means of expression in times of crisis, as some identity theorists assert.

Orientador: Antônio Suárez de Abreu / Banca: Astrit Karin Elisabeth Lily Nilsson Sgarbieri / Banca: Eloísa Cerdan Del Lama Barbieri / Banca: Silvia Dinucci Fernandes / Banca: Juscelino Pernambuco / Resumo: Este trabalho tem como objetivo investigar a funcionalidade argumentativa dos recursos de presença utilizados nos livros de auto-ajuda, com o apoio teórico da Nova Retórica e da moderna lingüística cognitiva. Para isso, fizemos uma análise retrospectiva dos estudos retóricos, pondo ênfase nos estudos cognitivistas atuais, sobretudo aqueles que envolvem a parábola e a metáfora. Analisamos, também, os recursos de presença em três livros de auto-ajuda, dois nacionais, O Alquimista de Paulo Coelho e A águia e a galinha de Leonardo Boff, e um internacional, Quem Mexeu no meu Queijo de Spencer Johnson. / Abstract: The aim of this study is to examine the argumentative functionality of the presence resources in self-helping books, technically supported by the New Rhetoric and the Modern Cognitive Linguistics. A retrospective analysis of the rhetorical studies was performed focusing the present cognitivist studies, especially the ones that encircle the parable and the metaphor. The presence resources were analyzed in three self-helping books: The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, The Eagle by Leonardo Boff and the Hen and Who moved my cheese by Spencer Johnson. / Doutor