Perspectivas no Estudo da Argumentação Quotidiana
Palabras clave:
Argumentação, Raciocínio informal, Cognição socialResumen
Este artigo revê alguns marcos teórico-metodológicos no estudo corrente da argumentação quotidiana. O texto divide-se em quatro partes principais seguidas de uma breve discussão. A primeira focaliza as duas principais formas como otermo argumento é definido na teoria e na pesquisa da argumentação. A segunda apresenta brevemente alguns dos modelos teóricos que, histórica e contemporaneamente, têm sido dominantes no estudo da argumentação. A terceira apresenta perspectivas sob as quais a argumentação tem sido estudada, enfatizando quatro elementos: a natureza dos dados, a situação em que a argumentação é produzida, os objetivos de cada estudo e os métodos adotados para a análise de dados. A parte final sintetiza resultados emergentes da pesquisa empírica sobre habilidades argumentativas de indivíduos.
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Citas
Antaki, C. (1988). Structures of belief and justification. Em С
Antaki (Org.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of
methods (pp. 60-73). London: Sage.
Aristotle. (1991). The art of rhetoric. London: Penguin.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to
social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. &
Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology
of everyday thinking. London: Sage.
Cody, M.J. & McLaughlin, MX. (1988). Accounts on trail: Oral
arguments in traffic court. Em C. Antaki (Org.), Analyzing
eveiyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 113-126 ).
London: Sage.
Edwards, J. & Baldauf, R.B., Jr. (1983). Teaching thinking in
secondary science. Em W. Maxwell (Org.), Thinking: The
expanding frontier (pp. 129-137). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin
Institute Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation,
communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (Orgs.). (1994). Studies in
pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook
of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Evans, J.S.B.T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and
consequences. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, J.S.B.T. (1991). Theories of human reasoning: The fragmented
state of the art. Theory & Psychology, 1, 83-105.
Galotti, K.M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday
reasoning. Psychological Review, 105, 331-351.
Garnham, A. & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gerritsen, S. (1994). A defence of deductivism in reconstructing
unexpressed premisses. Em F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst
(Orgs.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 41-47). Amsterdam:
Sic Sat.
Gilhooly, K.J. (1987). Mental modeling: A framework for the study
of thinking. Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead& J. Bishop (Orgs.),
Thinking: The second international conference (pp. 19-31).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grimshaw, A.D. (Org.). (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations
of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hample, D. (1980). A cognitive view of argument. Journal of the
American Forensic Association, 16, 151-158.
Hample, D. (1981). The cognitive context of argument. The Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 148-158.
Hample, D. (1985). A third perspective on argument. Philosophy
and Rhetoric, 18, 1-22.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic
perspective. Em C. Antaki (Org.), Analyzing everyday
explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127-144). London:
Sage.
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument:
Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 66, 251-265.
Johnson, R.H. (1991). The place of argumentation in the theory of
reasoning. Communication & Cognition, 24, 5-14.
Koch, I.G.V. (1984). Argumentação e linguagem. São Paulo:
Cortez.
Koplowitz, H. (1987). Post-logical thinking. Em D.N. Perkins, J.
Lochhead & J. Bishop (Orgs.), Thinking: The second international
conference (pp. 213-232). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kummer, W. (1972). Aspects of a theory of argumentation. Em E.
Guelich & W. Raible (Orgs.), Textsorten (pp. 25-49). Frankfurt:
Athenaum.
Lord, C.G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biased assimilation
and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently
considered evidence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
Mehan, H. (1990). Oracular reasoning in a psychiatric exam: The
resolution of conflict in language. Em A.D. Grimshaw (Org.),
Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in
conversations (pp. 160-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O'Keefe, D.J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the
American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.
Osakabe, H. (1977). Redações no vestibular: provas de argumentação.
Cadernos de Pesquisa, 23, 51-59.
Osakabe, H. (1979). Argumentação e discurso político. São Paulo:
Kairós.
Paz, M.P. (1982). A argumentação em editoriais jornalísticos. Tese
de Doutorado, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife.
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 142-158.
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A
treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of
Notre Dame Press.
Perkins, D.N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical
perspective. Em D.M. Topping, D.C. Crowell & V.N. Kobayashi
(Orgs.), Thinking across cultures: The third international
conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perkins, D.N., Allen, R. & Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday
reasoning. Em W. Maxwell (Org.), Thinking: The expanding
frontier (pp. 177-189). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin
Institute Press.
Perkins, D.N., Farady, M. & Bushey,B. (1991). Everyday reasoning
and the roots of intelligence. Em J. F. Voss, D.N. Perkins
& J.W. Segal (Orgs.), Informal reasoning and education (pp.
83-105). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perkins, D.N. & Salomon, G. (1987). Tranfer and teaching thinking.
Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead & J. Bishop (Orgs.), Thinking:
The second international conference (pp. 285-303). Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Philips, S.U. (1990). The judge as third party in American trialcourt
conflict talk. Em A.D. Grimshaw (Org.), Conflict talk:
Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations
(pp. 197-209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pontecorvo, С (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument
in knowledge construction. Em E. de Corte, H. Lodewijks,
R. Parmentier & P. Span (Orgs.), Learning and instruction:
European research in the international context (pp. 239-250).
New York: Pergamon.
Quastoff, U. (1978). The uses of stereotype in everyday argument.
Journal of Pragmatics, 2, 1-48.
Reboul,0. (1988). Can there be non-rhetorical arguments? Philosophy
and Rhetoric, 21, 220-233.
Ress, M.A. van. (1995). Argumentative discourse as a form of
social interaction: Implications for dialectical reconstruction.
[Resumo]. Em F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst. J.A. Blair
& C.A. Willard (Orgs.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings
of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol.
Ш, (pp. 159-167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Rowland, R.C. (1987). On defining argument. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 20,140-159.
Santos, S.L. (1993). The construction of arguments: A comparison
of the strategies employed by students in experimental and
naturalistic settings. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade de Cambridge,
Cambridge (Inglaterra).
Searle, J.R. (1990). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semin, G.R. & Gergen, K.J. (Orgs.). (1990). Everyday understanding:
Social and scientific implications. London: Sage.
Sproule, J.M. (1980). Argument: Language and its influence. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Swartz, R.J. (1987). Critical thinking, the curriculum, and the
problem of transfer. Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead & J. Bishop
(Orgs.), Thinking: The second international conference (pp.
261-284). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swartz, R.J. (1989). Making good thinking stick: The role of
metacognition, extended practice, and teacher modeling in the
teaching of thinking. Em D.M. Topping, D.C. Crowell & V.N.
Kobayashi (Orgs.), Thinking across cultures: The third international
conference on thinking (pp. 417-436). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative text structure and
translation. Yliopisto.
Toulmin, S.E. (1990). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (Originalmente publicado em 1958).
Voss, J.F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured
domains. Em С Antaki (Org.), Analysing everyday explanation:
A casebook of methods (pp. 74-93). London: Sage.
Willard, С.A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the
analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs,
43, 308-319.
Willard, C.A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of
knowledge. Alabama: The Alabama University Press.
Windisch, U. (1990). Speech and reasoning in everyday life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R. (1980). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction.
Discourse Processes, 3, 369-380.
Antaki (Org.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of
methods (pp. 60-73). London: Sage.
Aristotle. (1991). The art of rhetoric. London: Penguin.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to
social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. &
Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology
of everyday thinking. London: Sage.
Cody, M.J. & McLaughlin, MX. (1988). Accounts on trail: Oral
arguments in traffic court. Em C. Antaki (Org.), Analyzing
eveiyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 113-126 ).
London: Sage.
Edwards, J. & Baldauf, R.B., Jr. (1983). Teaching thinking in
secondary science. Em W. Maxwell (Org.), Thinking: The
expanding frontier (pp. 129-137). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin
Institute Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation,
communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (Orgs.). (1994). Studies in
pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook
of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
Evans, J.S.B.T. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and
consequences. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Evans, J.S.B.T. (1991). Theories of human reasoning: The fragmented
state of the art. Theory & Psychology, 1, 83-105.
Galotti, K.M. (1989). Approaches to studying formal and everyday
reasoning. Psychological Review, 105, 331-351.
Garnham, A. & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and reasoning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gerritsen, S. (1994). A defence of deductivism in reconstructing
unexpressed premisses. Em F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst
(Orgs.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 41-47). Amsterdam:
Sic Sat.
Gilhooly, K.J. (1987). Mental modeling: A framework for the study
of thinking. Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead& J. Bishop (Orgs.),
Thinking: The second international conference (pp. 19-31).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grimshaw, A.D. (Org.). (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations
of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hample, D. (1980). A cognitive view of argument. Journal of the
American Forensic Association, 16, 151-158.
Hample, D. (1981). The cognitive context of argument. The Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 148-158.
Hample, D. (1985). A third perspective on argument. Philosophy
and Rhetoric, 18, 1-22.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic
perspective. Em C. Antaki (Org.), Analyzing everyday
explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127-144). London:
Sage.
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument:
Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 66, 251-265.
Johnson, R.H. (1991). The place of argumentation in the theory of
reasoning. Communication & Cognition, 24, 5-14.
Koch, I.G.V. (1984). Argumentação e linguagem. São Paulo:
Cortez.
Koplowitz, H. (1987). Post-logical thinking. Em D.N. Perkins, J.
Lochhead & J. Bishop (Orgs.), Thinking: The second international
conference (pp. 213-232). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kummer, W. (1972). Aspects of a theory of argumentation. Em E.
Guelich & W. Raible (Orgs.), Textsorten (pp. 25-49). Frankfurt:
Athenaum.
Lord, C.G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biased assimilation
and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently
considered evidence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
Mehan, H. (1990). Oracular reasoning in a psychiatric exam: The
resolution of conflict in language. Em A.D. Grimshaw (Org.),
Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in
conversations (pp. 160-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O'Keefe, D.J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of the
American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.
Osakabe, H. (1977). Redações no vestibular: provas de argumentação.
Cadernos de Pesquisa, 23, 51-59.
Osakabe, H. (1979). Argumentação e discurso político. São Paulo:
Kairós.
Paz, M.P. (1982). A argumentação em editoriais jornalísticos. Tese
de Doutorado, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife.
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 142-158.
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A
treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of
Notre Dame Press.
Perkins, D.N. (1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical
perspective. Em D.M. Topping, D.C. Crowell & V.N. Kobayashi
(Orgs.), Thinking across cultures: The third international
conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perkins, D.N., Allen, R. & Hafner, J. (1983). Difficulties in everyday
reasoning. Em W. Maxwell (Org.), Thinking: The expanding
frontier (pp. 177-189). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin
Institute Press.
Perkins, D.N., Farady, M. & Bushey,B. (1991). Everyday reasoning
and the roots of intelligence. Em J. F. Voss, D.N. Perkins
& J.W. Segal (Orgs.), Informal reasoning and education (pp.
83-105). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perkins, D.N. & Salomon, G. (1987). Tranfer and teaching thinking.
Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead & J. Bishop (Orgs.), Thinking:
The second international conference (pp. 285-303). Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Philips, S.U. (1990). The judge as third party in American trialcourt
conflict talk. Em A.D. Grimshaw (Org.), Conflict talk:
Sociolinguistic investigation of arguments in conversations
(pp. 197-209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pontecorvo, С (1987). Discussing for reasoning: The role of argument
in knowledge construction. Em E. de Corte, H. Lodewijks,
R. Parmentier & P. Span (Orgs.), Learning and instruction:
European research in the international context (pp. 239-250).
New York: Pergamon.
Quastoff, U. (1978). The uses of stereotype in everyday argument.
Journal of Pragmatics, 2, 1-48.
Reboul,0. (1988). Can there be non-rhetorical arguments? Philosophy
and Rhetoric, 21, 220-233.
Ress, M.A. van. (1995). Argumentative discourse as a form of
social interaction: Implications for dialectical reconstruction.
[Resumo]. Em F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst. J.A. Blair
& C.A. Willard (Orgs.), Reconstruction and application. Proceedings
of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol.
Ш, (pp. 159-167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Rowland, R.C. (1987). On defining argument. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 20,140-159.
Santos, S.L. (1993). The construction of arguments: A comparison
of the strategies employed by students in experimental and
naturalistic settings. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade de Cambridge,
Cambridge (Inglaterra).
Searle, J.R. (1990). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semin, G.R. & Gergen, K.J. (Orgs.). (1990). Everyday understanding:
Social and scientific implications. London: Sage.
Sproule, J.M. (1980). Argument: Language and its influence. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Swartz, R.J. (1987). Critical thinking, the curriculum, and the
problem of transfer. Em D.N. Perkins, J. Lochhead & J. Bishop
(Orgs.), Thinking: The second international conference (pp.
261-284). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swartz, R.J. (1989). Making good thinking stick: The role of
metacognition, extended practice, and teacher modeling in the
teaching of thinking. Em D.M. Topping, D.C. Crowell & V.N.
Kobayashi (Orgs.), Thinking across cultures: The third international
conference on thinking (pp. 417-436). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative text structure and
translation. Yliopisto.
Toulmin, S.E. (1990). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. (Originalmente publicado em 1958).
Voss, J.F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured
domains. Em С Antaki (Org.), Analysing everyday explanation:
A casebook of methods (pp. 74-93). London: Sage.
Willard, С.A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the
analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs,
43, 308-319.
Willard, C.A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of
knowledge. Alabama: The Alabama University Press.
Windisch, U. (1990). Speech and reasoning in everyday life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R. (1980). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction.
Discourse Processes, 3, 369-380.
Descargas
Publicado
2013-07-11
Cómo citar
Santos, S. L. (2013). Perspectivas no Estudo da Argumentação Quotidiana. Psicologia: Teoria E Pesquisa, 12(1), 011–021. Recuperado a partir de https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17262
Número
Sección
Artigos
