Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Connections’ Category

From the Journal homepage:

In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of discord, strife, and quarrel. Aesop warned that Eris should be left undisturbed since combating Eris could cause it to intensify. However, Hesiod recognized Eris’s second nature as a force of progress and improvement, the noble competition. Argumentation and debate can regulate Eris and prioritize its second positive nature, sometimes leading to the solution or dissolution of the dispute.

The purpose of Eris is to refine and reflect on theory and practice of argumentation and debate. It seeks to attract and promote theoretical, empirical, and educational contributions on argumentation and debate from several perspectives (philosophical, rhetorical, educational, psychological, among others) with a focus on both their function to regulate conflicts and disagreements and their epistemic function.

Therefore, we invite you to submit paper proposals for the next issues of Eris. Italian, English, French and Spanish papers will be accepted for peer review.

For paper guidelines, please check the website: Eris.

Read Full Post »

CALL FOR PANELS/PAPERS

“BUILDING CONSENSUS. RHETORIC BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND CONFLICT”

Palermo, 15-18th April 2015

The aim of this conference is to encourage an interdisciplinary investigation of the role of rhetoric and discursive processes in the realization of democracy and its eventual degenerations. In the contemporary debate on this topic, there seems to be a polarization between two different conceptions of democracy: the “deliberative” one and the “agonistic” one. The first one is related to the classical tradition that considers Habermas as its reference point. This conception emphasizes the role of rational deliberation as a means to produce a legitimate and binding consensus. Instead, the second one draws its inspiration from C. Schmitt, and considers conflict and disagreement as unavoidable conditions of democratic life. Despite their obvious differences, these two theoretical models have a conception of rhetoric in common that is subjected to, or at least separated from, the full exercise of argumentative rationality. Nevertheless, an interpretation of rhetoric that includes the logical-argumentative dimension in the rhetorical domain is possible. In this way, the recovery of rhetoric, considered both as a practice and as a theory of persuasive speech, may shed light on the role of discursive processes in building consensus, and thus might allow a revision of the dialectical tension between the pairs of concepts that the debate tends to focus on: normative/descriptive, rational/irrational, agreement/conflict. Starting from this theoretical framework, the organizers hope to receive papers with a theoretical or historical character that come from different disciplines and perspectives, including: rhetoric, philosophy of language, philosophy of politics, argumentation theory, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and political science.

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

  • Luciano Canfora (University of Bari)
  • Chantal Mouffe (University of Westminster)
  • Paolo Virno (Universitày of Roma III)

The conference will be organized by EIKOS. International Research Group on Rhetoric and hosted by The Department of the Humanistic Sciences at the University of Palermo in cooperation with the International Center for Philosophical Research (CRF).

Conference Proceedings will be published in EPEKEINA. International Journal of Ontology. History and Critics, Vol. 7, n. 2/2016.

For more information visit the conference website:

CRF – Centro Internazionale per la Ricerca Filosofica | EIKOS.

Read Full Post »

Dan Cohen did a very nice TED talk on argumentation. If you haven’t seen it already, do check it out below!

Read Full Post »

26-31 July 2015,
Antwerp, Belgium

CALL FOR PANEL CONTRIBUTIONS

Pragmatic insights for analysing multimodal argumentative discourse

Panel organizers:

Assimakis Tseronis, University of Amsterdam
Chiara Pollaroli, Università della Svizzera italiana
Charles Forceville, University of Amsterdam

Theme

In the last two decades or so, scholars from discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, as well as pragmatics and argumentation studies have started paying attention to the non-verbal modes that interact with the verbal in a variety of media and communicative genres. Within multimodal discourse analysis, each mode is studied as realising part of the information communicated and their interaction as contributing to meaning-making processes. In most of the studies within multimodal analysis, however, the focus is more on the image-internal aspects than on the interaction between the image and the viewer and the properties of the context that play a role in the interpretation process.

Cognitive approaches to visual communication, by contrast, have focused on the interpretation (more…)

Read Full Post »

2015 Call | NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation.

From the Conference website:

Theme: Recovering Argument

The key term recover is richly ambiguous. Its primary sense, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “to regain (something lost).” To recover argument, in this sense, might be “to bring back or restore” argumentation to human affairs, and to encourage reflection on useable traditions. Although doing so requires awareness of a past (another sense is “to remember; to recall or bring back to memory”), and although such awareness might be nostalgic, recovery can be much more complicated: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Call for Papers

The Practice/s of Giving Reasons: a special issue of Topoi

Guest Edited by Chris Campolo and David Godden

 

The re-discovery, in the late 1970’s, of the perspectives on argument as process and practice (added to that of product) occasioned a dramatic re-visioning of the object of study in argumentation. Viewed as a practice of transacting reasons, argumentation became a situated activity, or doing, requiring know-how, rather than a collection of reasons – a thing containing a collection of knowledge-that.

This volume focuses on the normative and epistemic dimensions and consequences of viewing argumentation as the practice/s of transacting (giving and asking for) reasons. We mean to create momentum behind the perspectives focused primarily on the actions and doings which, alongside many related human practices, constitute argumentation. Here we open a space to explore and interrogate the idea that neither argumentation as a whole, nor the many elements into which it may be analyzed, can be adequately understood apart from an account of what it is to give reasons, with all the complexity and fluidity that attends our engagement in any kind of know-how. Rather, the practice/s of transacting reasons is central to the projects of explaining what a reason is, how reasons work, the normativity of reasons, as well as their prescriptivity (or our accountability to them). (more…)

Read Full Post »

Workshop on Argument Mining: Perspectives from Information Extraction, Information Retrieval and Computational Linguistics

9-10 July 2014, Dundee, Scotland

http://www.arg.dundee.ac.uk/swam2014

SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION

Submissions of position statement are invited for the SICSA Workshop on Argument Mining to be held in Dundee, Scotland.

Argument mining exploits the techniques and methods of natural language processing, or more specifically – text and opinion mining, for semi-automatic and automatic recognition and extraction of structured argument data from unstructured natural language texts. Lying at the intersection of sentiment analysis and computational models of argument, it is attracting increasing attention with an ACL workshop on the topic in Baltimore (http://www.uncg.edu/cmp/ArgMining2014/) and a meeting dedicated to the topic in Warsaw (http://argdiap.pl/argdiap2014).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers