An argumentative approach to drafts: from description to evaluation

An argumentative approach to drafts: from description to drafts: from description to evaluation C li MELLET (U i Caroline MELLET (Université Paris 10/Modyco) ité P i 10/M d ) Marie VENIARD (Université Paris Descartes/EDA)

[WU1]Stage

2?

OUTLINE 1.General description of argumentative p p operations in the descriptive accounts 2. Operation 1: a dynamic construction of the schematization schematization 3. Operation 2: Longitudinal and transversal analyses

1.General description of argumentative operations Operation p 1

Operation 2 p

Operation 3 p

Operation 4 p

Description‐ Description narration of the child’s situation

Passage from Passage from the description ‐ narration to the final evaluation

Passage from the Passage from the final evaluation to the recommendation

Passage from the Passage from the recommendation to the perlocutionary effects

Operations 2 and 3 Operations 2 and 3 • Final Final evaluation: « evaluation: « the placement in a foster the placement in a foster family continues to be beneficial for A ».

• Recommendation: it is necessary to pursue R d i i i the placement (« it seemed wise that the placement sees itself through »)

The argumentative processes in the first and second operations and second operations operation

location

Argumentative process Operation 1 In the different Schematisation Description‐ rubrics (« family (Grize 1997) narration of the life », « school », child’s situation …)

Operation 2 In the different Clue‐based Passage from the Passage from the rubrics rubrics + argumentation argumentation description‐ «conclusion» (Plantin 1996: « argumentation narration to the rubric narration to the argumentation final evaluation indicielle »)

Operation 1: constructing a schematization (1) schematization (1)

• Changes in the description

– 1: 1: “We We must note that M. is not yet must note that M is not yet questioning questioning the fact that she has been put in the children’s home [SAFE] which explains why we are able to home [SAFE], which explains why we are able to bring her back every time she runs away”.

• Weighing W i hi up facts f t (Garnier 2008) (G i 2008) – 2a (draft): “[…] M. thinks her training course is a good project but she does not like boarding during the week.” Æ 2b (final version) “[…] M. thinks her training course is a good project, except for the fact that g p j , p she has to board during the week. ”

Operation 1: constructing a schematization (2) • Handling reported speech (Sitri 2008) 3a: During group activities with the youth worker, she has a 3a: During group activities with the youth worker she has a habit of attention seeking […] which has reinforced the children’ss rejection of her and has led them to be less children rejection of her and has led them to be less tolerant of her. Æ3b (draft): The children express clearly the fact that she Æ3b (draft): The children express clearly the fact that she disturbs general life in the home or that she puts them in danger [ ] in danger […]. Æ 3c (final version): The children express clearly the fact that she disturbs general life in the home. She puts them in h h d b llf h h h h danger […].

Î Dynamic construction of stage 1

Operation 2 Operation 2

• Longitudinal analysis • Transversal analysis

Operation 2 (longitudinal) Operation 2 (longitudinal) Draft [ ] h ’ […] there’s no need to worry. d

Final version [ ] h ’ […] there’s no longer any need to l d worry about her physical health.

There are no specific problems at school […] [ ]

There are no specific difficulties noticed at school .

M. D. has some difficulties in M. D. is experiencing some Spanish, which she has just started difficulties in Spanish, which she this year. has just started learning this year.

M. D. ’s placement is very positive. M. D.’s placement is proving to be very positive for her. er positi e for her Î focus on the physical subject, the psychic subject (who thinks, desires) the social subject (at school)

Operation 2 (transversal) :verbal aspect • Iterative/semelfactive ‐passage passage to a semelfactive aspect to a semelfactive aspect ex : L. s’est montré très conformiste [depuis] mais, paradoxalement, il s’est laissé prendre i d l il ’ l i é d en flagrant délit dans sa chambre en train de fumer une cigarette [le /11,] en fin de soirée ».. (L. L.) (L. L.) > he was caught red‐handed smoking in his room [on the 11th] [ th 11th]

Operation 2 (transversal) :verbal aspect(2) passage to the iterative aspect ex « Son assistante familiale était inquiète au sujet d'une prise de poids qui lui paraissait excessive de conduites alimentaires qui lui paraissait anormales (Marine se relevait parfois la nuit il i i it l (M i l it f i l it pour manger,grignotait beaucoup) Son assistante familiale était inquiète au sujet d'une Son assistante familiale était inquiète au sujet d une prise de prise de poids qui lui paraissait excessive de conduites alimentaires q qui lui paraissait anormales (Marine se relevait parfois la nuit p ( p pour manger,elle grignotait régulièrement)

Operation 2 (transversal) :verbal aspect(3) • partitioning of the process (from the absence of boundaries ‐unfulfilled ‐ towards the partitioning) (Culioli 1999) open right boundary open, right boundary Ex: « Les parents se disqualifient mutuellement » > « continuent à se disqualifier continuent à se disqualifier mutuellement» Parents mutually disqualify each other > Parents continue to disqualify each other

Thanks for your attention ! caroline.mellet@wanadoo.fr caroline mellet@wanadoo fr marie.veniard@parisdescartes.fr

Bibliographic references • •

• • • •

• • •

Anscombre, Jean‐Claude et Ducrot, Oswald (1983). L'argumentation dans Anscombre Jean Claude et Ducrot Oswald (1983) L'argumentation dans la langue, Bruxelles, Mardaga, 184 p.

Cislaru, Georgeta, Pugnière‐Saavedra, Frédéric et Sitri, Frédérique (Eds.), 2008. Analyse de discours et demande sociale. Le cas des écrits de signalement. Les Carnets du cediscor 10.

Culioli Antoine (1999) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation Culioli, Antoine (1999), Pour une linguistique de l énonciation, Tome 3, Tome 3 Paris, Ophrys.

Garnier, Sylvie (2008), « L’évaluation dans les rapports de signalement », Les carnets du cediscor 10, pp 79‐91. d d Grize, Jean‐Blaise (1997). Logique et langage, Paris, Ophrys, 153 p.

Paré Anthony 1992 Writing in social work: a case study of a discourse Paré, Anthony. 1992. Writing in social work: a case study of a discourse community. National Library of Canada, Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, Mc Gill University.

P i D i l (2003) P Perrin, Daniel (2003). « Progression analysis (PA): investigating writing i l i (PA) i i i ii strategies at the workplace », Jounal of Pragmatics, 35, p. 907‐921.

Plantin, Christian (1996). L’argumentation, Paris, Le Seuil. , ( ) g , , Spilka, Rachel, (Ed.), 1993. Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

T l i S E (1958 d F 1994) L d l’ i

Examples in French (stage 1 and 2) Examples in French (stage 1 and 2) • 1. Il faut noter que Marion ne remet pas p encore en cause son placement au SAFE, d’où la possibilité effective que nous avons d’obtenir d obtenir son retour à chaque fois. son retour à chaque fois • 2. Mais, en même temps, Manon pense que le BEPA à la MFR est un bon projet mais que àl b [ [en dehors de la règle de] l’internat [qui] lui pose problème le soir. Elle aimerait […] rentrer le soir au foyer. au foyer.

• Le fait qu’elle a accaparé , […], un éducateur sur chaque temps du collectif a renforcé le rejet des chaque temps du collectif a renforcé le rejet des autres et a encore diminué leur seuil de tolérance car ils expriment clairement qu’elle car ils expriment clairement qu elle perturbe la vie perturbe la vie du collectif ou qu’elle les met en danger […].

Le fait qu’elle a accaparé , par son agitation et les risques qu’elle risques qu elle encourait, un éducateur sur chaque encourait, un éducateur sur chaque temps du collectif a renforcé le rejet des autres et a encore diminué leur seuil de tolérance car ils a encore diminué leur seuil de tolérance car ils expriment clairement qu’elle perturbe la vie du collectif ou qu’e[E]lle ll if ’ [ ]ll les met en danger […]. l d [ ]