The interactional and intertextual character of the polemic argument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47456/cl.v15i31.35652Keywords:
Argumentation, Interaction, Mis-en-scene, IntertextualityAbstract
The analytical criteria of Textual Linguistics are motivated by an attempt to explain the textual choices through which the subject acts on their saying, re-elaborating it at all times, negotiating it with the probable interlocutors (in their social roles), in order to seek to meet their purposes (CAVALCANTE et alii, 2020). It is precisely the assumption of this agentivity, of this actorialization, that makes Textual Linguistics choose as analysis criteria the various resources that the speaker can use to try to persuade whom they project as an interlocutor and, often, as a third party. We analyzed the marks of the negotiation of conflicts between the antagonistic points of view that take place in the polemic argumentative modalities, broadly admitting that, in human interactions, the interlocutors mobilize technolanguage resources, in digital environments, in their several attempts to reaffirm their point of view in the polemic and to influence the third party. We emphasize, in this study, two features of the argumentative modality of the controversy that deserve to be further explored. The first is the fact that Amossy's (2017) notion of polemic is described not as a discursive opposition by which every discourse is identified, but as one of the types of argumentative modality, which requires the polemic to happen in a concrete interaction, in which the participants enact the social role of Proponent, Opponent and Third Party. The second is the fact that the intertextuality is not an optional resource in this modality, but a condition for the conflict to take place in the public space.
Downloads
References
AMOSSY, R. Argumentação no discurso. São Paulo, Contexto, 2020.
AMOSSY, R. Linguística, retórica e análise do discurso. In: CAVALCANTE, M. M.; BRITO, M. A. P. (Orgs.). Texto, discurso e argumentação: traduções. Trad. Rosane Lorena de Brito, Mariza Angélica Paiva de Brito e Maria da Graça dos Santos Faria. Campinas: Pontes, 2020. p. 97-131.
AMOSSY, R. Apologia da polêmica. Coordenação da tradução Mônica Magalhães Cavalcante. São Paulo, Contexto, 2017.
AMOSSY, R. É possível integrar a argumentação na análise do discurso? Problemas e desafios. ReVEL, edição especial, v. 14, n. 12, p. 165-190, 2016.
AMOSSY, R. Contribuição da Nova Retórica para a AD: o estatuto do lógos nas Ciências da Linguagem. In: EMEDIATO, W.; LARA, G. M. P. (Orgs.). Análises do discurso hoje. vol. 4. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2011. p. 1-14 (e-book).
AMOSSY, R. As modalidades argumentativas do discurso. In: LARA, G.; MACHADO, I.; EMEDIATO, W. (Orgs.). Análises do discurso hoje. vol. 1. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2008. p. 231-254.
AMOSSY, R. Rhétorique et analyse du discours. Pour une approche socio-discursive des textes. In: ADAM, J. M.; HEIDMANN, U. (Orgs.). In: Sciences du texte et analyse de discours. Etudes de Lettres, 2005. p. 163-179.
CAVALCANTE, M. M. et al. Linguística Textual e argumentação. São Paulo: Ed. Pontes, 2020.
CORTEZ, S. L. A construção textual-discursiva do ponto de vista: vozes, referenciação e formas nominais. 2011. 249 f. Tese (Doutorado em Linguística) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, 2011.
DASCAL, M; KNOLL, A. Cognitive Systemic Dichotomization in Public Argumentation and Controversies, Frank Zenker (éd.), Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9thInternational Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, Windsor, ON (CD ROM), 1-35, 2011.
KING, A.; FLOYD, D. A. Nixon, Agnew, and the Silent majority: a case study in the rhetoric of polarization. western speech, 1971.
KOCK, C. Constructive controversy: rhetoric as dissensus-oriented discurse. Cogency, v. 1, p. 89-112, 2009.
MACEDO, P. S. A. de. Análise da argumentação no discurso: uma perspectiva textual. 2018. 245 f. Tese (Doutorado) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, 2018.
PAVEAU, M.-A. L’Analyse du Discours Numérique. Dictionnaire des formes et des pratiques. Paris: Hermann Éditeurs, 2017.
PERELMAN, C.; OLBRECTHS-TYTECA, L. Tratado da argumentação. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2005.
PLANTIN, C. Dictionnaire de l’argumentation: Une introduction aux études d’argumentation. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2016.
PINTO, R.; CORTEZ, S. Do pathos retórico à ‘empatia rabateliana’: argumentação emocionada em textos/discursos polêmicos. Revista de Letras, Fortaleza, v. 2, n. 36, p. 51-62, jul./dez. 2017
RABATEL, A. Sujets modaux, instances de prise en charge et de validation. Le discours et la langue, Cortil-Wodon: Editions modulaires européennes, v. 6, n. 3-2, p. 13-36, 2012.
RABATEL, A. Homo narrans: por uma abordagem enunciativa e interacionista da narrativa: pontos de vista e lógica da narração: teoria e análise. Trad. Mª das G. S. Rodrigues, Luís Passeggi, João G. da Silva Neto; revisão técnica João G. da Silva Neto. São Paulo: Cortez, 2016.
RABATEL, A. Du sens et de l’interprétation au prisme de la problématique translinguistique du point de vue. Orbis Linguarum, v. 50, 2018.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista (Con)Textos Linguísticos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors assign the copyright of the article to the publisher of Revista (Con)Textos Linguísticos (Graduate Program in Linguistics, Ufes), if the submission is accepted for publication. Responsibility for the content of articles rests exclusively with their authors. The full or partial submission of the text already published in this periodical to any other periodical is prohibited.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.