Emotional positioning as a cognitive resource for arguing
Lessons from the study of Mexican students debating about drinking water management
This paper consists of a detailed analysis of how the participants in a debate build their emotional position during the interaction and
how such a position is strongly related to the conclusion they defend. In this case study, teenage Mexican, students, arguing about access
to drinking water, display extensive discursive work on the emotional tonality given to the issue. Plantin’s (2011) methodological tools are adopted to follow two alternative emotional framings produced by disagreeing students,
starting from a common, highly negative, thymic tonality. Through the analysis of four parameters (distance to the problem;
causality/agentivity; possibility of control and conformity to the norms) we describe how the emotional dimension of
schematization (Grize 1997) is argumentatively relevant. In authentic
discourse, it is impossible to separate emotion from reason. The conclusion section discusses the implications for the design of
argumentation-based pedagogical activities.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Emotions in educational argumentation
- 2.2The discursive construction of emotions as part of authentic argumentation practices
- 3.Data and social context investigated
- 3.1Pedagogical situation
- 3.2Recording and treatment of the data
- 4.Students’ strategic emotional positioning in argumentative discourse
- 4.1Thymic characterization of the debate: “A matter of life or death”
- 4.1.1Use of lexical markers
- 4.1.2‘Necessity’: Death-orientated causal reasoning based on ‘upstream’ signals
- 4.2Different emotional positions supporting competing argumentative claims
- 4.2.1Emotional distance to the issue
- 4.2.2Control, causality and agentivity as parameters framing emotional intensity
- 4.2.3The use of principles to define appropriate, more or less pleasant, emotions
- 4.2.4The ‘argument of sadness’: From normative to emotional conflict
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
References
Albe, Virginie
2006 “
Procédés discursifs et rôles sociaux d’élèves en groupes de discussion sur une controverse socio-scientifique.”
Revue française de pédagogie 1571: 103–118.
Andriessen, Jerry, Mirjam Pardijs & Michael Baker
2013 “
Getting on and Getting along.” In
Affective Learning Together, ed. by
Michael Baker,
Sanna Järvelä &
Jerry Andriessen, 205–229. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Anscombre, Jean-Claude & Oswald Ducrot
1997 [1981] L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Baker, Michael, Jerry Andriessen & Sanna Järvelä
2013 Affective Learning Together. Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Baker, Michael & Jerry Andriessen
2009 “
Socio-Relational, Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of CSCL Interactions.” In
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (2), ed. by
Angelique Dimitracopoulou,
Claire O’Malley,
Daniel Suthers &
Peter Reimann, 31–33. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Baker, Michael, Matthieu Quignard, Kristine Lund & Marije van Amelsvoort
2002 “
Designing a Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Situation for Broadening and Deepening Understanding of the Space of Debate”. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren,
J. Anthony Blair,
Charles A. Willard and
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 55–61.
Caffi, Claudia & Richard W. Janney
1994 “
Toward a Pragmatics of Emotive Communication.”
Journal of Pragmatics 22 (3–4): 325–373.
Cahour, Béatrice
2013 “
Emotions: Characteristics, Emergence and Circulation in Interactional Learning”. In
Affective Learning Together, ed. by
Michael Baker,
Sanna Järvelä &
Jerry Andriessen, 52–69. Basingstoke, UK: Routledge.
Fowler, Samantha R., Dana L. Zeidler & Troy D. Sadler
2009 “
Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students.”
International Journal of Science Education 31 (2): 279–296.
Goffman, Erwin
1967 Interaction Ritual: Esays in Face-to-face Behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
Grize, Jean-Blaise
1997 [1990] Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.
Hamblin, Charles L.
1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Kacem, Saida & Laurence Simonneaux
2009 “
The Teaching of Socioscientific Issues in Interdisciplinarity Biology-Philosophy, an Ethical Stake and Citizenship Issue.”
US-China Education Review 6 (2): 44–47.
Järvenoja, Hanna & Sanna Järvelä
2013 “
Regulating Emotions Together for Motivated Collaboration”. In
Affective Learning Together, ed. by
Michael Baker,
Sanna Järvelä &
Jerry Andriessen, 162–181. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Micheli, Raphaël
2013 “
Esquisse d’une typologie des modes de sémiotisation verbale de l’émotion”.
Semen 351: 17–40.
Micheli, Raphaël
2010 L’émotion augmentée: l’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français. Paris: Cerf.
Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1958 Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Plantin, Christian
2011 Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Berne: Peter Lang.
Plantin, Christian, Marianne Doury & Véronique Traverso
2000 Les émotions dans les interactions. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
Polo, Claire
2014 L’eau à la bouche: ressources et travail argumentatifs des élèves lors de débats socio-scientifiques sur l’eau potable. PhD dissertation, Lyon 2 University.
Real Academia de la lengua Española
2001 “
agotar”,
Online Dictionary, 22th edition.
[URL]. Accessed October 30th 2014.
Roschelle, Jeremy & Stéphanie D. Teasley
1995 “
The Construction of Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.” In
The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, ed. by
Shelley V. Goldman,
James G. Greeno,
John L. Schnase &
Edward L. Cunnius, 69–97. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Simonneaux, Laurence & Jean Simonneaux
2009 “
Students’ Socio-Scientific Reasoning on Controversies from the Viewpoint of Education for Sustainable Development.”
Cultural Studies of Science Education 4 (3): 657–687.
Sins, Patrick & Karl Karlgren
2013 “
Identifying and Overcoming Tension in Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Professional Development.” In
Affective Learning Together, ed. by
Michael Baker,
Sanna Järvelä &
Jerry Andriessen, 185–203. Basingstoke, UK: Routledge.
Toulmin, Stephen E.
2003 [1958] The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas
1992 The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Zeidler, Danna L., Troy D. Sadler, Michael L. Simmons & Elaine V. Howes
2005 “
Beyond STS: A Research-Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues Education.”
Science Education 89 (3): 357–377.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Polo, Claire
2020.
Références. In
Le Débat fertile,
► pp. 247 ff.
Polo, Claire
2022.
L’exploration de controverses comme argumentation socio-cognitivo-émotionelle : débattre de la gestion de l’eau potable de façon constructive.
Questions vives recherches en éducation :N° 37
Valero Haro, Anahuac, Omid Noroozi, Harm Biemans & Martin Mulder
2022.
Argumentation Competence: Students’ Argumentation Knowledge, Behavior and Attitude and their Relationships with Domain-Specific Knowledge Acquisition.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology 35:1
► pp. 123 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.