¿Qué le dijo Ortega a Desábato?
Un estudio de los efectos interactivos de la analogía en la vida cotidiana
Keywords:
argumentative interaction. dispute. analogy. persuasion.Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine argumentative interaction as a phenomenon of talk focusing on a relevant practice: the use of analogy as a discursive strategy, with the purpose of describing the movements of the participants in the development of a discussion. Also, our goal is to understand conflict and the actions participants undertake to rebuild relationships and continue the exchange. We are interested in the communicative benefits associated with the use of analogy because it not only functions as a kind of argumentation scheme (van Eemeren y Grootendorst 2002) but also operates at the interactional level of discourse. The interaction is analyzed from a multidimensional perspective of discourse (Carrizo 2012). The theoretical hypothesis is that analogy is a strategy that limits the movements of the other party, in agreement with a particular interpretation framework (Goffman 1974). The corpus is a conversation in a family dinner where the mother asks her son, José, about a dispute between soccer players over the weekend. José takes sides with the one who decided not to talk to the press about what happened in the field.
Downloads
References
Berti, E. 1975. La dialéctica en Aristóteles. En E. Barti (ed.). Studi aristotelici, pp. 109-133. L’Aquila, Italia: Japadre Editore.
Carrizo, A. E. 2012. La argumentación interaccional: efectos del uso del discurso referido. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Universidad de Buenos Aires. E-Book. [ISBN 978-987-3617-24-9].
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
Goffman, E. 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48: 1-17.
Goodwin, C. y Goodwin, M. H. 2004. Participation. En A. Duranti (ed.). A Companion to linguistic anthropology, pp. 222-244. Maldan, MA: Blackwell.
Goodwin, C. 2007. Interactive Footing. En E. Holt y R. Clift (eds.) Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction, pp.16-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. [1975] 1995. Lógica y conversación. En L. M. Valdés Villanueva (ed.). La búsqueda del significado, pp. 511-30. Madrid: Tecnos.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holt, E. y Clift, R. 2007. Introduction. En E. Holt y R. Clift (eds.). Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction, pp.1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hymes, D. 1972. Models of interaction of language and social life. En J. Gumperz y D. Hymes (eds.). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, pp. 35-71. New York: Holt
Lavandera, B. 1985. Hacia una tipología del discurso autoritario. Plural I, 1:26-35.
Levinson, S. [1983] 1989. Pragmática. Barcelona: Teide.
Menéndez, S. M. (ed.) 1996. Análisis pragmático del discurso: propuestas y prácticas. Año 1- N° 1. Oficina de Publicaciones Facultad de Filosofía y Letras: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Perelman, C. y Olbrechts - Tyteca, L. [1958] 1994. La nueva retórica: un tratado sobre la argumentación. Madrid: Gredos.
Plantin, C. [1996] 1998. La argumentación. Barcelona: Ariel Practicum.
Pomerantz, A. y Mandelbaum, J. 2005. A conversation analytic approach to relationships: their relevance for interactional conduct. En K. Fitch y R. Sanders (eds.). Handbook of language and social interaction, pp. 149-171. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. y Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50, 4:696-735
Tannen, D. 1993. Framing in discourse. New York y Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. y Wallat, C. [1987] 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge sche- Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: examples from medical examination/interview. En D. Tannen (ed.). Framing in discourse, pp. 57-76. New York y Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. [1958] 2007. Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Península.
Toulmin, S. 1984. Special fields of reasoning. En S. Toulmin, R. Rieke y A. Janik (eds.). An introduction to reasoning. Second edition, pp. 271-279. New York: Macmillan.
van Dijk, T. A. y Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Eemeren, F. H. y Grootendorst, R. [1992] 2002. Argumentación, comunicación, falacias. Una perspectiva pragma-dialéctica. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Católica de Chile.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. y Henkemans, F.S. [2002] 2006. Argumentación. Análisis, evaluación, presentación. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright and guarantee RALED the right to be the first publication of the work as well as a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with recognition of authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
