Perspectivas no Estudo da Argumentação Quotidiana
Palavras-chave:
Argumentação, Raciocínio informal, Cognição socialResumo
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.
Downloads
Não há dados estatísticos.
Referências
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.
Downloads
Publicado
2013-07-11
Como Citar
Santos, S. L. (2013). Perspectivas no Estudo da Argumentação Quotidiana. Psicologia: Teoria E Pesquisa, 12(1), 011–021. Recuperado de https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17262
Edição
Seção
Artigos
