Posts Tagged ‘argumentation conferences’
2nd IFL Graduate Student Conference: “Reasons and Deliberation in Real-World Contexts”
DATES: JUNE 17TH-18TH 2013
The Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem (Institute for the Philosophy of Language) at FCSH-Universidade Nova de Lisboa (New University of Lisbon) is proud to announce its second Graduate Student Conference, to be held on the 17th and 18th of June, 2013, as part of the “Argumentation, Communication, and Context” project.
Dr. Hugo Mercier (CNRS Research Scientist, Laboratoire Langage, Cerveau et Cognition, Lyon, France)
Dr. Catherine Moury (Assistant Professor, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal)
Following the title of the conference, we are inviting graduate students from a variety of disciplines to deliver a 30-minute presentation discussing their current research pertaining to reason-giving and deliberation. The aim is to discuss the application of theoretical observations to empirical, or real-world, scenarios and thus highlight the importance of context to the processes of reason-giving and deliberation. (more…)
Posted in CFP, tagged Argumentation, argumentation conferences, CEAR, Christopher Tindale, critical thinking, critical thinking conferences, Diego Portales University, Elvira Narvaja de Arnaux, Johan van Bentham, logic, logic conferences on May 25, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Official languages of the Conference: Spanish and English.
- To learn about and spread the development and applications of logic, argumentation theory and critical thinking.
- To share tools and strategies to improve the processes of teaching in the realm of critical thinking.
- To stimulate academic and institutional exchanges.
Call for papers
The organizing committee invites proposal for papers in logic, informal logic, argumentation theory, rhetoric, critical thinking.
ABSTRACTS prepared for blind refereeing must be submitted electronically no later than September 30, 2012, to Cristián Santibáñez: email@example.com
Abstracts should be between 200 and 250 words long, in APA format.
Johan van Bentham
University of Amsterdam
Elvira Narvaja de Arnaux
University of Buenos Aires
University of Windsor
Posted in Announcements, Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, Rhetoric, Seminar/Workshop/Program Announcements, tagged argument, Argumentation, argumentation conferences, political discourse, reasoning, University of Windsor, visual argumentation on March 23, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in CFP, tagged argumentation conferences, ESSE 11, Linguistic and Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentative Discourse, linguistics conferences, new media, rhetoric conferences on December 23, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
CALL FOR PAPERS
You are cordially invited to submit proposals for Seminar 6, ‘Linguistic and rhetorical perspectives on argumentative discourse: Strategies across media and modes’, to be held at the 11th ESSE conference, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey (4-8September 2012).
Those wishing to participate in the seminar are welcome to submit a 200-word abstract directly to the convenors by 31 January 2012. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by 29 February 2012.
Argumentation is intrinsic to human communication, verbal and visual, oral and written,monologic and dialogic, private and public. One of the challenges facing the study of argumentation is to find appropriate analytical tools that capture the complex and multi-level argumentation strategies used in a wide range of discourses (academic, political, organisational, legal, journalism,advertising, etc.). This task is made even more challenging in contemporary society, in a context where increasing recourse is made to web-mediated communication, and the new social media.
The aim of this seminar is to bring about a cross-fertilisation of linguistic and rhetorical approaches to answer the following questions: In what ways can linguistic and rhetorical studies of argumentation provide new and deeper insights into postmodern communication and miscommunication? In what ways are argumentation strategies adapted to the interactive, multimodal and hypertextual options offered by the new media?
Posted in Announcements, Informal Logic, Pragma-dialectics, Rationality, Rhetoric, tagged argumentation conferences, Cogency journal, Gilbert Harman, J. Anthony Blair, Scott Aikin on December 8, 2011 | 2 Comments »
Click on the image to the right to view the table of contents for this issue. The articles named therein make me wish this weren’t final exam season. Among them is an article by Tony Blair on the moral normativity of argumentation, an issue by Scott Aikin on how the rhetorical model of argument is self-defeating, and a note on practical reasoning by Gilbert Harman just to name a few. All the articles aren’t available for download yet but I’m assured that they will be soon. The editorial, which is available for download at the present time, gives a brief synopsis of the articles. (It also gives a fairly comprehensive listing of recent and ongoing conferences in argumentation theory.) Happy reading!
The First Croatian International conference on Rhetoric (in honor of Ivo Skaric) will be held April 19th – 22nd 2012 on the island of Brac (Postira) in Croatia. Scholars working in the field of rhetoric and neighboring disciplines are invited to submit.
Abstracts should be submitted no later than 15th January 2012 by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Following a peer review process, notifications of acceptance will be sent by 15th February 2012.
Abstracts should be written in Croatian or English and should not exceed 500 words, excluding author details (name and affiliation) and references. Abstracts should include a description of the research, aim and method and the most important results. Conference papers will be published in the Proceedings.
Conference Themes include, but are not limited to:
- Argumentation and Law
- History of Rhetoric
- Rhetoric and Philosophy
- Media Rhetoric
- Rhetoric of Political Discourse
- Rhetoric of Religious Discourse
- Rhetoric of Scientific Discourse
- Rhetoric in Education
- Argumentation Theory
More information can be found at the conference website:
Posted in CFP, tagged AILACT, APA, APA Eastern Division Meeting, argument, Argumentation, argumentation conferences, calls for papers, critical thinking, Informal Logic, logic, philosophy, philosophy conferences, reasoning, reasoning conferences on June 18, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in CFP, tagged argumentation conferences, CADAAD, call for papers, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, critical theory, discourse analysis, functional linguistics, political discourse, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, University of Minho on May 25, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
The fourth international conference Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (CADAAD) will take place at the University of Minho in Braga, Portugal, 4-6 July 2012.
CADAAD conferences are intended to promote current directions and new developments in cross-disciplinary critical discourse research. We welcome papers dealing with any contemporary social, scientific, political, economic, or professional discourse/genre. Possible topics include but are not limited to the following:
Posted in Argumentation, Connections, Discourse Analysis, Discussion, Informal Logic, News, Pragma-dialectics, Rhetoric, tagged argumentation conferences, Beth Innocenti, CRRAR, David Hitchcock, Deep Disagreement, discourse analysis, Fred Kauffeld, Jean Goodwin, Karen Tracy, Maurice Finocchiaro, Normative Pragmatics, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, OSSA 2011, OSSA 9, Paul Thagard, University of Windsor on May 22, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
OSSA 2011 is now officially in the bag. It was a good week. With such a high volume of papers presented it’s possible to follow many trajectories, but these were my highlights:
- Attending a pre-conference workshop on normative pragmatics with Jean Goodwin and Beth Innocenti. Jean and Beth did a fantastic job explaining their views and those of Fred Kauffeld, with whom I was also fortunate enough to chat with at length. Even having known something of these views before, I left considerably enriched for the experience, and convinced that normative pragmatics is a research program that deserves a lot more investigation and development.
- Discourse analyst Karen Tracy’s keynote address on reasonable hostility in public hearings was also rich with ideas that I intend to think a lot more about in the coming weeks–especially her conception of how issues move through phases of being unarguable (unreflectively taken as settled), arguable (manifestly unsettled or controversial) and then unarguable again (settled sufficiently for the public discussion to move on). This is not to say that the other keynotes were not also worthwhile–they were. Paul Thagard’s effort to bring a neuropsychological viewpoint to the discussion over the nature of critical thinking was timely, and David Hitchcock’s presentation of his work on inference claims was as interesting and challenging as those who know his work would expect it to be. (You can read the abstracts of the keynotes here.)
- Having the chance both to attend Maurice Finocchiaro’s session on deep disagreement and to chat with him about it afterwards was illuminating. As readers of this blog will know, deep disagreement is one of my areas of interest within argumentation theory. Finocchiaro’s work, which will be part of a forthcoming book on meta-argumentation, moves the discussion of deep disagreement forward in what I think are all the right ways. I’m very glad he’s taken the problem on in the way that he has.
- Of course I have to thank the wonderful audience that attended my presentation on the history of conductive argument and reflective equilibrium as well. We had an excellent discussion from which I learned much that I will bear in mind as I carry forward my work on this and other projects.
Finally, no discussion of an OSSA conference would be complete without mention of the enormous camaraderie and good will that animates these events. Coming away from this iteration of OSSA I am reminded of my initial impression that the argumentation community models what I think are scholarly ideals of diversity of approach, internationality and interdisciplinarity. Of course, we have our divisions and competitive moments just like any other body of scholars. This is only natural among diverse people who care deeply about what they study and who struggle to get it right. What is impressive about argumentation theory is that these divisions enliven the discussions rather than hamper them. In many ways, these gatherings are as much gatherings of friends as they are academic gatherings. Thus, though I won’t try the reader’s patience with a long list of names, I will close this entry by saying how glad I am to have had the chance to catch up with so many old friends, and to have made so many new ones. All in all, it was a week well spent. I look forward to the next one.