University of Windsor, Ontario: Open Journal Systems
Not a member yet
3084 research outputs found
Sort by
Pluralisme des actes de langage dans les polylogues argumentatifs
No full textI challenge two key assumptions of speech act theory, as applied to argumentation: illocutionary monism, grounded in the idea each utterance has only one (primary) illocutionary force, and the dyadic reduction, which models interaction as a dyadic affair between only two agents (speaker-hearer, proponentopponent). I show how major contributions to speech act inspired study of argumentation adhere to these assumptions even as illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues is a significant empirical fact in need of theoretical attention. I demonstrate this with two examples where arguers interacting with multiple persons convey plural, argumentatively relevant illocutionary forces. Understanding illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues also affords a better account of fallacious and manipulative discourse.Je conteste deux hypothèses clés de la théorie des actes de langage appliquée à l\u27argumentation: l\u27une du monisme illocutoire, fondée sur l\u27idée que chaque énoncé n\u27a qu\u27une seule force illocutoire (primaire); et la réduction dyadique, qui modélise l\u27interaction comme une affaire dyadique entre seulement deux agents (locuteur-auditeur, promoteuropposant). Les contributions majeures à l\u27étude de l\u27argumentation inspirée par les actes de langage adhèrent à ces hypothèses. Ainsi, la théorie de l\u27argumentation devrait embrasser le pluralisme illocutoire dans les polylogues argumentatifs. Je démontre le fonctionnement de tels échanges argumentatifs complexes avec deux exemples où des personnes qui argumentent entre elles interagissent avec plusieurs autres personnes et en même temps transmettent plusieurs forces illocutoires et pertinentes dans leur argumentation. Le pluralisme illocutoire dans les polylogues argumentatifs permet également de mieux rendre compte des discours fallacieux et manipulateurs
Proceedings of the Trends in Forensic Sciences (TIFS) Conference 2021
No full textProceedings of the Trends in Forensic Sciences (TIFS) Conference 202
Teachers\u27 Voices: Pandemic Lessons for the Future of Education
No full textIn late 2019 and early 2020, governments around the world closed educational institutions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A similar response occurred in Canada and resulted in a sudden pivot by teachers from classroom-based instruction to remote teaching. During and shortly after this time, we undertook a survey study of over 2000 Canadian teachers, as well as follow-up interviews with a representative sub-set of those who took part in the initial round of the survey, to gain perspectives on teaching during the pandemic crisis. We summarize the foundations of the entire study and focus on the analysis and discussion of interview data to provide enhanced understanding of initial survey results. This study presents five lessons from the voices of teachers in the initial stages of COVID-19 in Canadian K-12 schools. Each lesson addresses a reality of teaching that was magnified by the pandemic and is highlighted for future consideration of educators in times of uncertainty and change
Pedagogical Talking Circles: Decolonizing Education through Relational Indigenous Frameworks
No full textThis article focuses on pedagogical talking circles as a practice of decolonizing and Indigenizing education. Based upon Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), non-Indigenous educators have a responsibility, while Indigenous educators have an opportunity, to transform normative colonial institutional knowledge structures and practices. Pedagogical talking circles are particularly useful in providing supported spaces for participants/students to engage in reciprocal and relational learning. The pedagogical theories outlined in this article utilize three main Indigenous methodological approaches: situated relatedness, respectful listening, and reflective witnessing. Based upon these underlying approaches, this article speaks to the necessity for decolonizing education (K-12 and post-secondary)
La distinction entre le faux dilemme et le faux syllogisme disjonctif
No full textSince a clear account of the fallacy of false disjunctive syllogism is missing in the literature, the fallacy is defined and its three types are differentiated after some preliminaries. Section 4 further elaborates the differentia specifica for each of the three types by analyzing relevant argument criticism of each, as well as the related profiles of dialogue. After defining false disjunctive syllogisms, it becomes possible to distinguish between a false dilemma and a false disjunctive syllogism: section 5 analyzes their similarities (which explains why the fallacies are often confused with one another) and section 6 explains their differences.Puisqu\u27un compte rendu clair du syllogisme disjonctif fallacieux est absent dans la littérature, je définis cette erreur et différencie ses trois types. La section 4 décrit en plus de détails les différences spécifiques pour chacun de ces trois types en analysant la critique argumentative pertinente de chacun, ainsi que les profils de dialogue associés. Après avoir défini les syllogismes disjonctifs fallacieux, il devient possible de distinguer entre un faux dilemme et un syllogisme disjonctif fallacieux: la section 5 analyse leurs similitudes (ce qui explique pourquoi ces sophismes sont souvent confondus) et la section 6 explique leurs différences.
Métaphilosophie et Argumentation: Le Cas de la Justification de l\u27Enlèvement
No full textThis paper is an essay on metaphilosophy that reviews, describes, categorises, and discusses different ways philosophers have approached the justification of abduction as a mode of reasoning and arguing. Advocating an argumentative approach to abduction, I model the philosophical debate over its justification as the critical assessment of a warrant-establishing argument allowing “H explains D” to be used as a reason for “H can be inferred from D.” Philosophers have discussed the conditions under which such kind of generic argument can be accepted, and I identify five kinds of such conditions, namely: a) dialectical/procedural restriction; b) claim restriction; c) restriction over acceptable explanatory principles; d) balancing restriction; and e) epistemic restriction.Cet article est un essai sur la métaphilosophie qui passe en revue, décrit, catégorise et discute des différentes manières dont les philosophes ont abordé la justification de l’abduction en tant que mode de raisonnement et d\u27argumentation. Préconisant une approche argumentative de l’abduction, je modélise le débat philosophique sur sa justification comme l\u27évaluation critique d\u27un argument établissant une loi de passage permettant d’utiliser « H explique D » comme raison pour « H peut être déduit de D ». Les philosophes ont discuté des conditions dans lesquelles un tel type d\u27argument générique peut être accepté et j\u27identifie cinq types de telles conditions, à savoir : a) restriction dialectique/ procédurale ; b) la restriction des énoncés ; c) restriction des principes explicatifs acceptables ; d) restriction d\u27équilibrage et e) restriction épistémique.  
