International Conference
Communication and Cognition 2011: Manipulation, Persuasion and Deception in Language
January 26-28 2011 - University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Read more on the CONFERENCE WEBSITE
The overall aim of this conference is to explore the various parameters that affect the way we process communicated information; as a case in point, this 2011 edition will focus on the issue of persuasive, manipulative, biased and fallacious verbal communication, with the goal of shedding light on different parameters that play a role in its 'success'. In this respect, we seek contributions which specifically focus on those (formal, informal, cognitive, linguistic and contextual) aspects of communication that orient the interpretation of language and fulfil argumentative and persuasive ends, be it in interpersonal or mass communication.
In the past, discursive manipulation and neighbouring phenomena such as lies, deception, persuasion and uncooperative communication, to name a few, have been investigated by a variety of researchers in numerous fields in the humanities and the social sciences. Among those are philosophy (e.g. Chisholm & Feehan 1977, Mahon 2007, Parret 1978); persuasion research (e.g. Petty & Cacioppo 1986, Chaiken 1987); linguistics, in particular pragmatics (e.g. Attardo 1997, Tanaka 1994, Blass 2005, Saussure 2005); cognitive linguistics (e.g. Chilton 2004); communication science (e.g. McCornack 1992, O'Keefe 2002); (critical) discourse analysis (e.g. Galasinski 2000, van Dijk 2006, Wodak 2007); argumentation theory (e.g. van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004, Jacobs 1995), not to mention the classical tradition of rhetoric. However, the link between persuasive or deceptive communication and the cognitive underpinnings allowing for its success, already explored by trends in persuasion research, still needs to be fully drawn and understood, given that the available literature on the topic leaves too often aside the communicative dimension of manipulation and seldom aims for a psychologically plausible account of such communication-dependent phenomena.
Recent developments in cognitive science call for new research questions in the field of deceptive persuasion and manipulation through verbal communication, in particular in what regards the cognitive grounds of misguided and credulous interpretation - and more generally of gullibility (see Maillat & Oswald 2009). Emotions, trust, confidence and other attitudes have long been considered as keys for the effectiveness of persuasive language; the connotative load of certain keywords and more generally the role of the lexicon, as well as types of syntactic structures and other linguistic devices such as presuppositions have also been suspected to bear on the persuasive force of deceptive communication. However, little is known yet as to why and how these processes, including fallacious argumentation as a whole, jeopardize evaluation. Recent research in this growing field tends to confirm the hypothesis that communicative phenomena linked to deception and persuasion exploit cognitive biases and heuristics otherwise useful for the general economy of human communication. A long established concern for these cognitive biases and heuristics in information processing (see Wason 1966, 1968, Kahneman & Tversky 1974), which can in turn yield cognitive illusions and errors in information processing (see Pohl 2004), together with the input of cognitive anthropology (e.g. Mercier & Sperber, forth. Sperber et al. forth.) and developmental psychology (Mascaro & Sperber 2009, Clément 2010, Harris et al. forth.) opens a new promising trend of research on the persuasiveness of deceptive communication.
It is one of the purposes of this conference to stimulate interdisciplinary inquiry on these themes. Accordingly, contributions promoting an integration of different - yet complementary - trends into interdisciplinary models of information processing are encouraged. The organisers will particularly welcome papers located at the interface of the disciplines concerned, whether grounded on empirical evidence or presenting a theoretical model.
Showing posts with label conferences and colloquia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conferences and colloquia. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
ISSA conference 2010
I haven't been writing for a while but this was an important month for argumentation scholars. From June 29 to July 2 we have been experiencing the 7 ISSA conference in Amsterdam.
An impressive number of scholars has participated in this event, which was a really good occasion for scientific dialogue. For me personally, the ISSA conference this year has opened new interesting research paths. It has also allowed me to see different traditions of the study of argumentation, "encountering", for example, many interesting studies coming from rhetoricians working in the US.
We were a numerous group of Swiss researchers, including many PhD students working on argumentation in context - which is one of the results of the doctoral program Argupolis (www.argupolis.net).
The detailed conference program had been published here: http://cf.hum.uva.nl/issa/ISSA%20detailed%20programme%202010.pdf. The ISSA Conference proceedings are in the process of being prepared.
An impressive number of scholars has participated in this event, which was a really good occasion for scientific dialogue. For me personally, the ISSA conference this year has opened new interesting research paths. It has also allowed me to see different traditions of the study of argumentation, "encountering", for example, many interesting studies coming from rhetoricians working in the US.
We were a numerous group of Swiss researchers, including many PhD students working on argumentation in context - which is one of the results of the doctoral program Argupolis (www.argupolis.net).
The detailed conference program had been published here: http://cf.hum.uva.nl/issa/ISSA%20detailed%20programme%202010.pdf. The ISSA Conference proceedings are in the process of being prepared.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Phd honoris causa to Frans van Eemeren
Frans van Eemeren has received a PhD honoris causa from the Università della Svizzera italiana (also known as "University of Lugano"). The ceremony was held on April 17, 2010, during the last Dies Academicus.
Here is the motivation and some photos.
Congratulations! It is a great joy for the whole community of argumentation scholars
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Friday, 9 April 2010
Space and Time across Languages, Disciplines and Cultures
STALDAC 2010: Space and Time across Languages, Disciplines and Cultures
April 8-10, 2010, University of Cambridge, UK
http://www.cilr.cam.ac.uk/staldac/index.html
The complete programme is available here. Different papers are relevant to linguistic and argumentative analysis
April 8-10, 2010, University of Cambridge, UK
http://www.cilr.cam.ac.uk/staldac/index.html
The complete programme is available here. Different papers are relevant to linguistic and argumentative analysis
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Argumentation in international movements (migration tourism...)
...The conference Enter2010 (http://www.enter2010.org/) is just completed! This has given us the occasion to reflect on the impact of argumentation on international movements (tourism, migration...) involving intercultural exchanges and discussions.
See in particular Silvia de Ascaniis's paper (Visualizing and mapping argumentation in the tourism field). Short papers will be published soon here
To be continued...
***
(photos of the conference available on Flickr. The youngest participant was my son)
See in particular Silvia de Ascaniis's paper (Visualizing and mapping argumentation in the tourism field). Short papers will be published soon here
To be continued...
***
(photos of the conference available on Flickr. The youngest participant was my son)
Saturday, 23 January 2010
La bibliométrie en question
La bibliométrie en question: origines, approches et alternatives
"Ce premier colloque vise à clarifier les origines de la bibliométrie conventionnelle
"Ce premier colloque vise à clarifier les origines de la bibliométrie conventionnelle
dans le domaine de l’évaluation de la recherche. Dans une perspective historique
et méthodologique, nous examinerons les approches dominantes et alternatives
possibles. Un accent particulier sera mis sur les sciences humaines et sociales,
non seulement comme objets de mesure et d’évaluation complexes, mais aussi et
surtout comme disciplines riches en enseignement pour comprendre la recherche
en action. L’articulation entre approches quantitatives et qualitatives sera au
centre du débat. Le colloque s’adresse à toute personne intéressée ou concernée
par la thématique, que ce soit dans une perspective politique, administrative ou
scientifique. Les communications seront en français et en anglais."
From: http://www2.unine.ch/webdav/site/spc/shared/documents-agenda/ColloqueQualite.pdf
Neuchâtel, February 4 and 5 2010 - participation is free
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Würzburg International Symposium on Dialogue in Politics
Political Dialogue Analysis
Würzburg International Symposium on Dialogue in Politics
13-15 September 2010
CALL FOR PAPERS
Human beings are articulate mammals and political agents. How are the two connected: is
there a direct connection between them? Is politics necessarily mediatised, or is it articulated
directly? What is political dialogue, and what are the realisations of dialogue about politics
and political dialogue?
The goal of the symposium on Dialogue in Politics is to bring together different analytic
approaches and methodologies used in political discourse analysis and political dialogue
analysis, examining politics as text-and-talk, politics as media events, the construction of
micro politics and macro politics in and through dialogue, to name but the most prominent
ones. In this sense, the symposium is open to the various approaches in Dialogue Analysis and
Political Discourse Analysis but will have a specific focus on approaches that aim at
addressing the mixed game of effective dialogic interaction. Issues related to cultural norms
and cultural variation, mediatisation and institutionalization of political dialogue are included.
Possible session topics:
• Parliamentary discourse
• Political interview
• Political speech
• Political identities
• Politics and power
• Politics and gender
• Politics as text and talk
• Positioning in political dialogue
Abstracts and registration
• Deadline for abstracts 15 March 2010.
• Registration early bird by 1 May 2010.
Contact: iada2010@uni-wuerzburg.de
Website: http: //www.anglistik.uni-wuerzburg.de/iada2010
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Appel à communication : persuasion et argumentation
Appel à communication : persuasion et argumentation
Found on the interesting website http://www.rhetorique.org/
Colloque persuasion et argumentation
Colloque international organisé par le CRAL, EHESS, dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche franco-mexicain.Il aura lieu à Paris, à l’EHESS, du 7 au 9 septembre 2010.appel à communication
On a longtemps opposé la persuasion à la conviction. Dans cette optique, seule la conviction ressortissait de l’argumentation, parce qu’elle fait appel à la raison, tandis que la persuasion reposerait sur des techniques de manipulation visant seulement à produire un effet sur l’auditoire. Perelman, par exemple, bien qu’il ait mis l’accent sur l’importance de l’auditoire, n’en défendait pas moins une conception de la rationalité à prétention universelle qui devrait être partagée par tout être de raison et entraînerait la conviction lorsqu’elle s’adresse à un auditoire universel, tandis que la persuasion ne s’adresserait qu’à un auditoire particulier. Les choses n’en sont pas restées là. Ce qu’on a appelé depuis Hamblin le « tournant pragmatique » de l’argumentation a mis en question cette opposition, dans la mesure où, pour ce courant, l’argumentation ayant toujours lieu dans un contexte donné, voit son enjeu limité à ce contexte.Qu’en est-il aujourd’hui ? Si le champ de l’argumentation est vaste et ouvert à des positions distinctes, voire opposées, la question de la persuasion est l’une de celles qui divisent le plus les chercheurs. Pour le courant épistémique (John Biro et Harvey Siegel), persuasion et argumentation restent diamétralement opposés, car s’ils admettent que la persuasion peut parfois être le but de l’argumentation, la validité d’un argument doit être mesurée, à leurs yeux, à partir de seuls critères épistémiques. A partir d’une analyse différente, Marc Angenot arrive aux même conclusions dans son dernier livre (Dialogue de sourds, 2008) : le constat que « les gens se persuadent rarement les uns les autres tout en argumentant inlassablement » l’amène également à séparer radicalement persuasion et argumentation. A l’autre extrême se situe la conception de Douglas Walton, pour qui la persuasion constitue l’un des types de dialogues qui découpent pour lui le domaine de l’argumentation et fait donc pleinement partie de celle-ci. Entre ces deux extrêmes viennent prendre place toute une gamme de positions intermédiaires. Les pragma-dialecticiens opposaient (en 2004), le processus de persuasion, centré sur les effets à produire et relevant donc d’une recherche des catégories rhétoriques susceptibles d’influencer de manière efficace un auditoire donné, au processus de conviction qui repose sur la recherche des discours argumentatifs de nature à résoudre un problème de différence d’opinion. Depuis cette présentation, la position de Frans Van Eemeren et de ses co-auteurs a évolué. Ils considèrent aujourd’hui que ces deux éléments sont co-présents à des degrés divers dans toute argumentation. Leur concept de « manœuvre stratégique » cherche à rendre compte de la volonté, au sein de la pratique argumentative, de réduire la tension potentielle qui résulte de ces deux objectifs de l’argumentation, complémentaires mais distincts : viser en même temps le but « dialectique » de la « raisonnabilité » (reasonableness) et le but « rhétorique » de l’efficacité.En revanche, pour les tenants de l’approche de la logique informelle (Tony Blair et Ralph Johnson), persuasion et argumentation ne sont pas vraiment opposés. C’est ainsi que Johnson définira le but de l’argumentation comme visant à une « persuasion rationnelle ».L’objectif de ce colloque est de faire le point sur les rapports controversés qu’entretiennent de nos jours la persuasion et l’argumentation dans les différentes conceptions de l’argumentation. Plusieurs thématiques pourront être abordées, parmi lesquelles, à titre indicatif :- examiner l’importance du contexte dans les pratiques persuasives, dans la mesure où celles-ci sont toujours fonction d’un auditoire particulier ;- comprendre comment se présentent ces pratiques dans différentes disciplines, s’il est vrai qu’il y a aussi de la persuasion dans l’argumentation scientifique, par exemple, de sorte que la persuasion ne serait pas l’apanage des arts (littérature et arts visuels) ; l’étude comparative des différentes pratiques persuasives devrait à cet égard s’avérer particulièrement féconde ;- articuler plus finement persuasion et argumentation, au lieu de les voir comme opposés. Si tous les procédés persuasifs ne relèvent évidemment pas de l’argumentation, certains pourraient peut-être répondre aux critères épistémologiques et cognitifs qui règlent l’argumentation conçue come une entreprise rationnelle ;- en ce sens, intégrer ainsi à l’argumentation certaines des techniques persuasives devrait permettre de prendre en compte des types de discours encore trop souvent exclus du champ de l’argumentation, précisément parce qu’ils seraient de nature persuasive : littérature, discours publicitaire, propagande politique, argumentation visuelle.
Les communications peuvent être présentées en français ou en anglais.
Les personnes intéressées à participer sont invitées à adresser un courrier électronique avant le 15 février 2010 à Georges Roque : grgsroque@gmail.com
Ce courriel doit contenir un titre provisoire, un résumé de la communication proposée en Word (un feuillet de 1500 signes max.), votre adresse électronique, l’institution à laquelle vous appartenez, le cas échéant, ainsi qu’un bref CV (une page max.)La décision du comité de sélection vous sera communiquée avant le 28 février 2010.
Found on the interesting website http://www.rhetorique.org/
Colloque persuasion et argumentation
Colloque international organisé par le CRAL, EHESS, dans le cadre d’un projet de recherche franco-mexicain.Il aura lieu à Paris, à l’EHESS, du 7 au 9 septembre 2010.appel à communication
On a longtemps opposé la persuasion à la conviction. Dans cette optique, seule la conviction ressortissait de l’argumentation, parce qu’elle fait appel à la raison, tandis que la persuasion reposerait sur des techniques de manipulation visant seulement à produire un effet sur l’auditoire. Perelman, par exemple, bien qu’il ait mis l’accent sur l’importance de l’auditoire, n’en défendait pas moins une conception de la rationalité à prétention universelle qui devrait être partagée par tout être de raison et entraînerait la conviction lorsqu’elle s’adresse à un auditoire universel, tandis que la persuasion ne s’adresserait qu’à un auditoire particulier. Les choses n’en sont pas restées là. Ce qu’on a appelé depuis Hamblin le « tournant pragmatique » de l’argumentation a mis en question cette opposition, dans la mesure où, pour ce courant, l’argumentation ayant toujours lieu dans un contexte donné, voit son enjeu limité à ce contexte.Qu’en est-il aujourd’hui ? Si le champ de l’argumentation est vaste et ouvert à des positions distinctes, voire opposées, la question de la persuasion est l’une de celles qui divisent le plus les chercheurs. Pour le courant épistémique (John Biro et Harvey Siegel), persuasion et argumentation restent diamétralement opposés, car s’ils admettent que la persuasion peut parfois être le but de l’argumentation, la validité d’un argument doit être mesurée, à leurs yeux, à partir de seuls critères épistémiques. A partir d’une analyse différente, Marc Angenot arrive aux même conclusions dans son dernier livre (Dialogue de sourds, 2008) : le constat que « les gens se persuadent rarement les uns les autres tout en argumentant inlassablement » l’amène également à séparer radicalement persuasion et argumentation. A l’autre extrême se situe la conception de Douglas Walton, pour qui la persuasion constitue l’un des types de dialogues qui découpent pour lui le domaine de l’argumentation et fait donc pleinement partie de celle-ci. Entre ces deux extrêmes viennent prendre place toute une gamme de positions intermédiaires. Les pragma-dialecticiens opposaient (en 2004), le processus de persuasion, centré sur les effets à produire et relevant donc d’une recherche des catégories rhétoriques susceptibles d’influencer de manière efficace un auditoire donné, au processus de conviction qui repose sur la recherche des discours argumentatifs de nature à résoudre un problème de différence d’opinion. Depuis cette présentation, la position de Frans Van Eemeren et de ses co-auteurs a évolué. Ils considèrent aujourd’hui que ces deux éléments sont co-présents à des degrés divers dans toute argumentation. Leur concept de « manœuvre stratégique » cherche à rendre compte de la volonté, au sein de la pratique argumentative, de réduire la tension potentielle qui résulte de ces deux objectifs de l’argumentation, complémentaires mais distincts : viser en même temps le but « dialectique » de la « raisonnabilité » (reasonableness) et le but « rhétorique » de l’efficacité.En revanche, pour les tenants de l’approche de la logique informelle (Tony Blair et Ralph Johnson), persuasion et argumentation ne sont pas vraiment opposés. C’est ainsi que Johnson définira le but de l’argumentation comme visant à une « persuasion rationnelle ».L’objectif de ce colloque est de faire le point sur les rapports controversés qu’entretiennent de nos jours la persuasion et l’argumentation dans les différentes conceptions de l’argumentation. Plusieurs thématiques pourront être abordées, parmi lesquelles, à titre indicatif :- examiner l’importance du contexte dans les pratiques persuasives, dans la mesure où celles-ci sont toujours fonction d’un auditoire particulier ;- comprendre comment se présentent ces pratiques dans différentes disciplines, s’il est vrai qu’il y a aussi de la persuasion dans l’argumentation scientifique, par exemple, de sorte que la persuasion ne serait pas l’apanage des arts (littérature et arts visuels) ; l’étude comparative des différentes pratiques persuasives devrait à cet égard s’avérer particulièrement féconde ;- articuler plus finement persuasion et argumentation, au lieu de les voir comme opposés. Si tous les procédés persuasifs ne relèvent évidemment pas de l’argumentation, certains pourraient peut-être répondre aux critères épistémologiques et cognitifs qui règlent l’argumentation conçue come une entreprise rationnelle ;- en ce sens, intégrer ainsi à l’argumentation certaines des techniques persuasives devrait permettre de prendre en compte des types de discours encore trop souvent exclus du champ de l’argumentation, précisément parce qu’ils seraient de nature persuasive : littérature, discours publicitaire, propagande politique, argumentation visuelle.
Les communications peuvent être présentées en français ou en anglais.
Les personnes intéressées à participer sont invitées à adresser un courrier électronique avant le 15 février 2010 à Georges Roque : grgsroque@gmail.com
Ce courriel doit contenir un titre provisoire, un résumé de la communication proposée en Word (un feuillet de 1500 signes max.), votre adresse électronique, l’institution à laquelle vous appartenez, le cas échéant, ainsi qu’un bref CV (une page max.)La décision du comité de sélection vous sera communiquée avant le 28 février 2010.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Summer is approaching...
...Let me "abuse" a bit of my blog to announce a conference that will take place in Lugano, which might be of interest to all argumentation scholars wishing to deal with tourism not only as a good thing to do in summer but also as a study object:
http://www.enter2010.org/
http://www.enter2010.org/
Friday, 29 May 2009
Conference on argumentation in mediation
The annual assembly of the Associazione Ticinese per la Mediazione (ATME), foreseen for June 17, 2009 in Lugano, will be preceded this year by a conference devoted to argumentation in mediation.
See http://www.mediazioneticino.ch/
8. Assemblea ordinaria dei soci ATME
mercoledi 17 giugno 2009 alle ore 17:30
presso il Centro della Mediazioni, via Carducci 4 (Piazza San Rocco), Lugano
17.30C onferenza di Sara Greco Morasso dal titolo: "La mediazione come dialogo ragionevole"
18.30 Assemblea annuale
See http://www.mediazioneticino.ch/
8. Assemblea ordinaria dei soci ATME
mercoledi 17 giugno 2009 alle ore 17:30
presso il Centro della Mediazioni, via Carducci 4 (Piazza San Rocco), Lugano
17.30C onferenza di Sara Greco Morasso dal titolo: "La mediazione come dialogo ragionevole"
18.30 Assemblea annuale
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
PhD announcement
Faculty of Communication sciences, Lugano
Gentili Signore,Egregi Signori,Abbiamo il piacere di annunciare che:
venerdì 27 marzo 2009 alle ore 10.30 in aula A 24
Sara Greco Morasso
difenderà la sua tesi di dottorato dal titolo:
Argumentative and other communicative strategies of the mediation practice.
La giuria sarà composta da:Prof. Eddo Rigotti, Usi (direttore di tesi); Prof. Frans van Eemeren, Università di Amsterdam (membro esterno); Prof. Dr. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Università di Neuchâtel (membro esterno); Presiede la difesa il Prof. Ivan Snehota.
The success mediation is experiencing in several societal domains (Sander 1979; Moffitt and Bordone 2005) is mainly bound to the possibility that this practice offers to find a win-win solution that truly meets the parties’ interests (Princen 1992a; Menkel-Meadow 2005). This possibility is exclusively supported by communicative instruments and, specifically, by means of argumentation. In mediation, in fact, the parties are competent and responsible for the decision on the conflict, while the mediator not only intervenes as a third neutral, but he/she is also not held and not authorized to advance proper standpoints or arguments in favour of a specific outcome (van Eemeren et al. 1993): what he/she is in charge of doing is to stimulate parties to discuss reasonably, to motivate them to find a solution of the conflict, and to keep trace of their zones of agreement. Indeed, what the mediator properly does is helping the parties’ assumption of an argumentative attitude; in fact, in successful mediation, two conflicting individuals, entrenched in an escalating spiral of hostility, become co-arguers, able to tackle their differences of opinion by means of reasonable discussion.A relevant question becomes, thus, understanding how mediators can help and foster such a radical change in the parties’ attitude and how this actually contributes to the happy fulfilment of the mediation goal, namely to the resolution of the conflict.In order to answer this question, the present dissertation has been organized along two main research focuses.First, a comprehensive ontological framework of mediation conceived of as an interaction scheme (Rigotti and Rocci 2006) has been reconstructed. This framework allows considering all relevant factors and their relations in the context of the mediation script from its origin, namely some form of conflict (Yarn 1999), to its short-term and long-term outcomes. Its elicitation has required a conceptual analysis of mediation based on a reasoned interdisciplinary synthesis of different scientific approaches (see among others Wall, Stark and Standifer 2001; Herrman, Hollett and Gale 2006).Second, using this framework as a term of comparison, an argumentative analysis of mediation has been proposed, based on empirical evidence of a corpus of successful cases. The analysis shows how mediation encompasses a macro-text of argumentative discussions that allows the fulfilment of the pragmatic goal of conflict resolution. The mediator’s argumentative activity emerges, in particular, in relation to a wise management of the topical potential (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002). Mediators have a determinant influence in setting up the parties’ discussion, in particular in relation to the creation of an “argumentative space” based on a sound confrontation stage and to the analysis of the parties’ conflict and of the relationships it jeopardizes (in the opening stage). As the discussion proceeds, parties progressively manage it themselves, by assuming an argumentative attitude.A key to explain the parties’ change is constituted by the consideration of their interests. Some moves allowing to evoke interests, like presupposition accommodation (Greco 2003; Cigada 2008), have emerged in the analysis. In this way, the present research explains how, through argumentative means, mediators manage to focus on interests rather than on the parties’ claimed positions (Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991), not rarely discovering that these interests are not incompatible but even mutually inclusive.These outcomes represent actual advances in the theoretical understanding of mediation and in the investigation of the role played in this practice by argumentative processes. They also provide a basis to design aware conflict resolution interventions.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Interesting conference (in Italian) at USI
I mercoledì dell'ISI. Per il ciclo di conferenze pubbliche "Corpi e corpuscoli":
Il lume di una candela
Marco Maggi
Marco Maggi
Campus di Lugano, Auditorio
4 marzo 2009, ore 18:00-19:30
«Il mondo va in fretta, il secolo si accelera. Non è più tempo di lucignoli e candelabri. A oggetti desueti ormai non si accompagnano che sogni superati» (Gaston Bachelard). Dinanzi al lume rimane a sognare, nel Novecento, la poesia. Sogni intessuti di memoria, come constata Montale: «Il ricordo è un lucignolo, il solo che resta»; non per questo sogni superati, se in quel «semplice lume» (Par., XXXIII, 90) balugina, promessa di futuro, la «luce dell’U-topia» (Paul Celan). Nel cono proiettato dall’immaginario della «piccola luce» si profila la situazione della parola poetica nel tempo presente.
«Il mondo va in fretta, il secolo si accelera. Non è più tempo di lucignoli e candelabri. A oggetti desueti ormai non si accompagnano che sogni superati» (Gaston Bachelard). Dinanzi al lume rimane a sognare, nel Novecento, la poesia. Sogni intessuti di memoria, come constata Montale: «Il ricordo è un lucignolo, il solo che resta»; non per questo sogni superati, se in quel «semplice lume» (Par., XXXIII, 90) balugina, promessa di futuro, la «luce dell’U-topia» (Paul Celan). Nel cono proiettato dall’immaginario della «piccola luce» si profila la situazione della parola poetica nel tempo presente.
***
Marco Maggi ha compiuto studi di letteratura e filosofia a Milano (Università Cattolica) e Ginevra, perfezionandosi all’Istituto per gli studi filosofici (Napoli) e all’Institut d’Études littéraires del Collège de France (Parigi). È membro del comitato di redazione della «Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa». Le sue ricerche vertono principalmente sulla letteratura italiana del Seicento, sulla letteratura umanistica, sui rapporti tra la letteratura e le arti. Ha pubblicato l’edizione dell’inedito Vocabulario italiano di Emanuele Tesauro (Firenze, Olschki, 2008), la monografia Aurore barocche (Torino, Aragno, 2006), il catalogo dei libri antichi di Natalino Sapegno e Giulio Augusto Levi (Torino, Aragno, 2001). Tra i suoi saggi apparsi su riviste e volumi collettivi, l’edizione del catalogo della biblioteca di Emanuele Tesauro («Lettere Italiane», 2001/2). Accanto agli studi secenteschi – attualmente coltivati sulle relazioni tra letteratura spirituale e musica – ha di recente intrapreso una ricerca su Leopardi e le immagini bibliche dei patriarchi.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
7th ISSA Conference in Amsterdam: Call for papers
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE 7th ISSA CONFERENCE
From June 29 to July 2, 2010, the 7th Conference on Argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) will be held at the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the conference is to draw together scholars from a variety of disciplines that are working in the field of argumentation theory.
The keynote speakers are:
Maurice Finocchiaro (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
James Klumpp (University of Maryland)
James Freeman (Hunter College, City University of New York).
The planning committee of the 7th ISSA Conference invites presentations of original,
non-published work on argumentation. Argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation are all encouraged to take part.
Anyone who wishes to present a paper can submit an abstract in English to the planning committee by sending an e-mail attachment to issa-fgw@uva.nl. Abstracts (ca. 250 words), prepared for blind refereeing, must be submitted in Word no later than November 1, 2009. All abstracts should be accompanied by a separate file in which the author indicates his/her research interests and provides a list of key publications on argumentation. Please include your surname and "issa abstract" in the subject entry of your e-mail message.
Among the conference themes are:
Argument schemes
Argumentation structures
Fallacies
Theoretical issues
Argumentative strategies
Argumentation and stylistics
Ethos and pathos in argumentation
Analysis of controversies
Argumentation in debate
Persuasion research
Interpersonal argumentation
Visual argumentation
Religious argumentation
Argumentation and epistemology
Argumentation in the media
Argumentation in a medical context
Argumentation in a legal context
Argumentation in a political context
Further information on the 7th ISSA Conference is available at: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa. The address of the planning committee is: Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, email: issa-fgw@uva.nl.
From June 29 to July 2, 2010, the 7th Conference on Argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) will be held at the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the conference is to draw together scholars from a variety of disciplines that are working in the field of argumentation theory.
The keynote speakers are:
Maurice Finocchiaro (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
James Klumpp (University of Maryland)
James Freeman (Hunter College, City University of New York).
The planning committee of the 7th ISSA Conference invites presentations of original,
non-published work on argumentation. Argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation are all encouraged to take part.
Anyone who wishes to present a paper can submit an abstract in English to the planning committee by sending an e-mail attachment to issa-fgw@uva.nl. Abstracts (ca. 250 words), prepared for blind refereeing, must be submitted in Word no later than November 1, 2009. All abstracts should be accompanied by a separate file in which the author indicates his/her research interests and provides a list of key publications on argumentation. Please include your surname and "issa abstract" in the subject entry of your e-mail message.
Among the conference themes are:
Argument schemes
Argumentation structures
Fallacies
Theoretical issues
Argumentative strategies
Argumentation and stylistics
Ethos and pathos in argumentation
Analysis of controversies
Argumentation in debate
Persuasion research
Interpersonal argumentation
Visual argumentation
Religious argumentation
Argumentation and epistemology
Argumentation in the media
Argumentation in a medical context
Argumentation in a legal context
Argumentation in a political context
Further information on the 7th ISSA Conference is available at: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa. The address of the planning committee is: Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, email: issa-fgw@uva.nl.
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE 7TH ISSA CONFERENCE
From June 29 to July 2, 2010, the 7th Conference on Argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) will be held at the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the conference is to draw together scholars from a variety of disciplines that are working in the field of argumentation theory.
The keynote speakers are:
Maurice Finocchiaro (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
James Klumpp (University of Maryland)
James Freeman (Hunter College, City University of New York).
The planning committee of the 7th ISSA Conference invites presentations of original,
non-published work on argumentation. Argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation are all encouraged to take part.
Anyone who wishes to present a paper can submit an abstract in English to the planning committee by sending an e-mail attachment to issa-fgw@uva.nl. Abstracts (ca. 250 words), prepared for blind refereeing, must be submitted in Word no later than November 1, 2009. All abstracts should be accompanied by a separate file in which the author indicates his/her research interests and provides a list of key publications on argumentation. Please include your surname and "issa abstract" in the subject entry of your e-mail message.
Among the conference themes are:
Argument schemes
Argumentation structures
Fallacies
Theoretical issues
Argumentative strategies
Argumentation and stylistics
Ethos and pathos in argumentation
Analysis of controversies
Argumentation in debate
Persuasion research
Interpersonal argumentation
Visual argumentation
Religious argumentation
Argumentation and epistemology
Argumentation in the media
Argumentation in a medical context
Argumentation in a legal context
Argumentation in a political context
Further information on the 7th ISSA Conference is available at: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa. The address of the planning committee is: Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, email: issa-fgw@uva.nl.
The keynote speakers are:
Maurice Finocchiaro (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)
James Klumpp (University of Maryland)
James Freeman (Hunter College, City University of New York).
The planning committee of the 7th ISSA Conference invites presentations of original,
non-published work on argumentation. Argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation are all encouraged to take part.
Anyone who wishes to present a paper can submit an abstract in English to the planning committee by sending an e-mail attachment to issa-fgw@uva.nl. Abstracts (ca. 250 words), prepared for blind refereeing, must be submitted in Word no later than November 1, 2009. All abstracts should be accompanied by a separate file in which the author indicates his/her research interests and provides a list of key publications on argumentation. Please include your surname and "issa abstract" in the subject entry of your e-mail message.
Among the conference themes are:
Argument schemes
Argumentation structures
Fallacies
Theoretical issues
Argumentative strategies
Argumentation and stylistics
Ethos and pathos in argumentation
Analysis of controversies
Argumentation in debate
Persuasion research
Interpersonal argumentation
Visual argumentation
Religious argumentation
Argumentation and epistemology
Argumentation in the media
Argumentation in a medical context
Argumentation in a legal context
Argumentation in a political context
Further information on the 7th ISSA Conference is available at: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa. The address of the planning committee is: Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, email: issa-fgw@uva.nl.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Conference on Dialogical Self
Some interesting interdisciplinary insights on argumentation may come from the following conference, organized by Hubert J. Hermans (University of Nijmegen, Hollande), Alex Gillespie and Tania Zittoun.
Dialogical self
Cambridge, UK, August 26-29th 2008
http://www.dialogicalscience.com/
The concept of dialogical self is a new development in psychology which combines the work of theorists such as Bakhtin and James with the latest developments in cultural, cognitive and social psychology and in psychotherapy. This new approach is closely related to narrative psychology, constructivism, and cultural psychology, but the focus is upon the multivoiced self. According to the concept of the dialogical self, the individual self is social in origin and dialogical in function. The self reflects and appropriates the voices of society and significant others, and within the functioning of the self we find these voices in dialogue.
Exploration of the dialogical self has broad scope, ranging from literary sciences to brain research and from empirical psychology to psychotherapy practice. It brings together different fields of psychology, such as personality, developmental, social, and clinical psychology. Across these diverse fields, the concept of the dialogical self provides an interdisciplinary platform for innovative research, theory and practice.
Central topics of interest include: self and identity, culture and self, globalization, music and dialogue, power and rhetoric, dialogue and political psychology, reconstruction of self-narratives in psychotherapy, dialogue and development
For more information on the current topics in the field, we advise consulting one of the recent special issues on the Dialogical Self: Culture & Psychology (vol.7, 3, 2001), Theory & Psychology (vol.12, 2, 2002), Journal of Constructivist Psychology (vol.16, 2, 2003), Identity (vol.4, 4, 2004), and Counselling Psychology Quarterly (vol.19, 1, 2006).
A recent review of the field can be found in: Hermans, HJM, & Dimaggio, G. (2007). Self, identity, and globalisation in times of uncertainty: A dialogical analysis. Review of General Psychology, March.
Up-to-date articles and discussions can also be found in the International Journal for Dialogical Science (IJDS), which is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, electronic open-access journal.
The Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self will focus upon the self and dialogue and the ways in which meaning is constructed and reconstructed. The purpose of the conference is to organize interchange and discussion of problems related to the dialogical self across the boundaries of specific (sub)disciplines. As such, the Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self is open to psychologists and representatives of other social sciences and arts.
From the first Conference in Nijmegen (2000), through the second Conference in Gent (2002), the third Conference in Warsaw (2004), and the fourth Conference in Braga (2006), these International Conferences on the dialogical self have served as exciting meeting places for theoreticians, researchers, psychotherapists and trainers interested in exploring the implications of the dialogical self in their fields of work.
As with previous conferences, the Fifth Conference is closely connected to the International Society for Dialogical Science (ISDS).
For more information about the scientific programme, please contact the Chairperson, Hubert Hermans at HHermans@psych.ru.nl, or for more information about the organisational aspects of the conference, please email the conference organisers at dialogicalself2008@googlemail.com.
Dialogical self
Cambridge, UK, August 26-29th 2008
http://www.dialogicalscience.com/
The concept of dialogical self is a new development in psychology which combines the work of theorists such as Bakhtin and James with the latest developments in cultural, cognitive and social psychology and in psychotherapy. This new approach is closely related to narrative psychology, constructivism, and cultural psychology, but the focus is upon the multivoiced self. According to the concept of the dialogical self, the individual self is social in origin and dialogical in function. The self reflects and appropriates the voices of society and significant others, and within the functioning of the self we find these voices in dialogue.
Exploration of the dialogical self has broad scope, ranging from literary sciences to brain research and from empirical psychology to psychotherapy practice. It brings together different fields of psychology, such as personality, developmental, social, and clinical psychology. Across these diverse fields, the concept of the dialogical self provides an interdisciplinary platform for innovative research, theory and practice.
Central topics of interest include: self and identity, culture and self, globalization, music and dialogue, power and rhetoric, dialogue and political psychology, reconstruction of self-narratives in psychotherapy, dialogue and development
For more information on the current topics in the field, we advise consulting one of the recent special issues on the Dialogical Self: Culture & Psychology (vol.7, 3, 2001), Theory & Psychology (vol.12, 2, 2002), Journal of Constructivist Psychology (vol.16, 2, 2003), Identity (vol.4, 4, 2004), and Counselling Psychology Quarterly (vol.19, 1, 2006).
A recent review of the field can be found in: Hermans, HJM, & Dimaggio, G. (2007). Self, identity, and globalisation in times of uncertainty: A dialogical analysis. Review of General Psychology, March.
Up-to-date articles and discussions can also be found in the International Journal for Dialogical Science (IJDS), which is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, electronic open-access journal.
The Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self will focus upon the self and dialogue and the ways in which meaning is constructed and reconstructed. The purpose of the conference is to organize interchange and discussion of problems related to the dialogical self across the boundaries of specific (sub)disciplines. As such, the Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self is open to psychologists and representatives of other social sciences and arts.
From the first Conference in Nijmegen (2000), through the second Conference in Gent (2002), the third Conference in Warsaw (2004), and the fourth Conference in Braga (2006), these International Conferences on the dialogical self have served as exciting meeting places for theoreticians, researchers, psychotherapists and trainers interested in exploring the implications of the dialogical self in their fields of work.
As with previous conferences, the Fifth Conference is closely connected to the International Society for Dialogical Science (ISDS).
For more information about the scientific programme, please contact the Chairperson, Hubert Hermans at HHermans@psych.ru.nl, or for more information about the organisational aspects of the conference, please email the conference organisers at dialogicalself2008@googlemail.com.
Thursday, 5 June 2008
ARGUMENT CULTURES
ARGUMENT CULTURES
A Conference presented by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA)
June 3-6, 2009
University of Windsor, Windsor ON, Canada
The call for papers is open up to September 8, 2008.
Further information is available on the website of the Center for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR) at the University of Windsor (http://www.uwindsor.ca/crrar).
Monday, 19 May 2008
Thursday, 31 January 2008
What's new in Lugano
Conference of the Swiss Association for Applied Linguistics (VALS-ASLA)
Lugano, February 7-9
Friday, 18 January 2008
Argumentation conferences 2008
Some conferences on argumentation taking place in 2008:
- IADA: WORD MEANING IN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUEUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Milan 2008, 15-17 May (http://www.unicatt.it/convegno/iada/)
- Second International Conference on Computational Models of Argument- Toulouse, 28-30 May 2008 (http://www.irit.fr/comma08/)
- See also the website of a conference just held in Santiago (Chile): http://www.udp.cl/humanasyeducacion/cea/conferencia/index3.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
