L'argumentation dans le discours : argumenter n'est pas justifier

Abstract

Argumentation in everyday speech is generally analyzed as a demonstration process. Though sometimes vague in its expression, or incomplete in its assumptions, it seems to preserve the structure of a mathematical demonstration: what is at stakes is to show, by means of an argument interpreted and justifiable in itself, that the conclusion is true. In fact, the natural use of done differs from its mathematical counterpart, not qualitatively but structurally. Argument and conclusion cannot be interpreted independently and spoken argumentation cannot even be considered an incomplete demonstration. Put positively, it means injecting into discourse ordinary expressions and common place ideas, contained in the very meaning of the words and developped by the way they are strung together. From this point of view, done is no longer the privileged mark of argumentation: pourtant differently but just as directly, makes it possible;

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.