{"word_count": 888, "character_count": 6191}
The 7th  Conference on Argumentation of the  International Society for the Study of  Argumentation will take place in  Amsterdam from June 29 to July 2, 2010.You will find here the detailed conference programmeThis congress will host argumentation  theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts,  communication  scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars  involved in  the study of argumentation, even some socio-argumentativists ! Thus, if French scholars are not many to be involved, due to the relative weakness of argumentative field in academic and research institutions in France, our so-called "epistemic community" will be well represented!Francis Chateauraynaud (EHESS, GSPR, Paris) &#38; Marianne Doury  (CNRS,  LCP  / GSPR Paris) : "The collective making of temporal aspects in  public debates"The present paper deals with the processes by which  actors  involved in controversies produce competing representations of  the temporal modalities  of action and judgment, which play a crucial  role in the dynamics of  arguments.  By examining, from a dual  (both  linguistic and sociological) perspective,   the way argumentative  processes and world events are connected, we  investigate the functions  and uses of argument schemes (e.g. causal reasoning,  precedent,  slippery slope argument …) and linguistic indicators supporting the   stakes of temporality (such as "now", "fatally", "so  inevitable,"  "possibly”, "later"). Our contribution will be  grounded on a  computerized analysis of a large series of major controversies  and  polemics. The analysis will focus on significant situations, in which  the  relationships between past events and visions of the future  constitute a major  issue of the debate. Many examples will be taken  from issues like nuclear power  and radioactive waste, climate change,  GMOs, pesticides, nanotechnologies,  etc..Marianne Doury (LCP – CNRS, Paris) &#38; Christian Plantin  (ICAR –  CNRS, Lyon) : "Argument in students’ examination scripts: the  analyst in  disarray"This paper, will focus on difficulties met by students  when  writing argumentative sequences. We will rely on studies  elaborated within  didactics of argumentation by Reichler-Béguelin  (1990, 1992) on argumentative  anomalies.  The analysis of the student's   papers will follow the principle of charity i. e. grant the maximal  coherence  to the student's writings. We will observe at which level  students’  argumentative difficulties rise up – in micro-connections  within a sentence or  in the macro-structure of answers, and suggest  that the appeal to argumentative  indicators (“connecteurs”) roots in a  Pavlovian equation “argumentation =  argumentative indicators” (Plantin  1994), inherited from high school education.  Such an approach of the  data will enable us to assess different theories of  argumentation, and  to test whether they can account for such authentic  argumentative  productions (Garcia-Debanc 1994).Assimakis Tseronis (CNRS LCP / GSPR  Paris) : "Towards an empirically plausible classification  of  argumentative markers"This paper explores the possibilities that the study of a   corpus of texts opens up for the identification and description of   argumentative markers. It seeks to provide a working definition and a   classification of markers that can be of use in the search for arguments  that  language users employ or criticise in a corpus of texts. To this  direction, the  paper studies what it takes to identify the expression  of a point of view or of  disagreement, the establishment of common  ground, various types of argument and  the evaluation of these arguments  by the parties involved in a discussion. The  corpus is constituted of  texts produced by a number of different agents on the  topic of  nanotechnologies and the controversies related to the risks and   benefits that are attached to their development. [caption id="attachment_1012" align="aligncenter" width="501" caption="Le pont entre toutes les disciplines"][/caption] Put also an attention to the two following contributions by close colleagues :Christian Plantin (University  of Lyon, Lyon &#38; CNRS, Lyon) : "Ruling the dialogue: so many ways" This presentation focuses on the variety of systems of  rules which can apply to  dialogue sFirst, different kinds of sets of rules on   dialogue/conversation are distinguished: (1) Rules as observational   regularities; (2) Grice's Conversational maxims; (3) Rules of politeness  ; (4)  Ritual rules for specific speech event; (5) Rules for debates in  specific  settings; (6) Rules for specific dialog genres; (7) Rules for  rational debate;  (8) «Rules for Honorable Controversy». Second, these  general concepts of rules  for will be contrasted with different Muslim  “etiquettes of debate” (adab of  discussion and debate). Third, three  main points about these systems of rules  will be discussed: relative  redundancy; possible theoretical / practical  contradictions; impact on  theoretical issues such as the concept of “deep  disagreement”.Raphaël Micheli (University  of Lausanne, Lausanne) :"When words themselves become the objects of  argumentation"For the past few years, several significant  argumentation  scholars have taken a renewed interest in the role played  by metalinguistic  activity in argumentative discourse. When engaging  in an argumentation,  speakers quite often need to use language  reflexively. In this line of thought,  scholars such as Walton, Schiappa  or Zarefsky have identified cases when  dialogue shifts to a « verbal  dispute about words » and have focused on  the role played by  definitions in argumentation. The aim of this paper is to  better  understand how these « verbal disputes » work within the realm  of  political discourse. I will present a detailed analysis of an  argumentative  exchange in which the disagreement between speakers  specifically bears on what  a word means and on whether or not it can  legitimately be used. The data will  include a controversy between two  prominent French politicians about the words  « liberal » and  « liberalism ».Overview  of  the complete series of abstracts (alphabetic order) 