Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Schemi argomentativi"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Зміст
Ознайомтеся зі списками актуальних статей, книг, дисертацій, тез та інших наукових джерел на тему "Schemi argomentativi".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Статті в журналах з теми "Schemi argomentativi"
DVOSKIN, Gabriel, and Anelise Gregis ESTIVALET. "Gênero e sexualidade: (Ou) Posições sobre a educação sexual." INTERRITÓRIOS 6, no. 10 (April 14, 2020): 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.33052/inter.v6i10.244893.
Повний текст джерелаDota, Michela. "TEMA O TESI? MEDIAZIONE E STRATEGIE DI MEDIAZIONE COME SUPPORTO AL RICONOSCIMENTO DEI TESTI ARGOMENTATIVI." Italiano LinguaDue 14, no. 2 (January 17, 2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.54103/2037-3597/19614.
Повний текст джерелаBraga, Paolo. "La dimensione argomentativa del racconto cinematografico in materia bioetica: il caso di Lo scafandro e la farfalla." Medicina e Morale 65, no. 5 (November 23, 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/mem.2016.456.
Повний текст джерелаДисертації з теми "Schemi argomentativi"
Brambilla, Emanuele. "THE QUEST FOR ARGUMENTATIVE EQUIVALENCE.An Interpreting-oriented Argument Analysis of Political Source Texts on the Economic Crisis." Doctoral thesis, Università degli studi di Trieste, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/10077/10985.
Повний текст джерелаL’interpretazione ha spesso luogo in situazioni argomentative, vale a dire eventi comunicativi miranti alla “soluzione” di una divergenza di opinioni in merito a una specifica questione. Nel tentativo di difendere o delegittimare determinate posizioni, gli oratori fanno solitamente ricorso a tecniche argomentative che determinano la forza pragmatica del discorso. In questo senso, l’argomentazione è essenzialmente relativa, poiché dipende da convenzioni culturali, vincoli contestuali e fattori soggettivi. La relatività delle tecniche argomentative complica il compito interpretativo, soprattutto considerando che, nelle situazioni argomentative, la qualità dell’interpretazione è determinata dall’abilità dell’interprete di trasmettere lo scopo argomentativo del testo di partenza. L’equivalenza passa, cioè, per il rispetto delle convinzioni dell’oratore, senza il quale l’interpretazione è destinata a produrre un testo non equivalente all’originale a livello pragmatico. Guidato anche dall’intenzione di sopperire, seppur in misura minima, alla scarsa considerazione che le teorie dell’argomentazione godono nella ricerca in interpretazione, il presente progetto di ricerca circoscrive lo studio delle situazioni argomentative all’analisi dell’argomentazione in ambito politico, perseguendo due obiettivi principali: la definizione di una metodologia appropriata per l’analisi descrittiva dell’argomentazione nei testi di partenza e la valutazione empirica della relatività delle tecniche argomentative, mirante alla formulazione di indicazioni per l’interpretazione di discorsi politici. Lo studio si basa su un corpus comparabile multilingue denominato ARGO. Il corpus contiene trecentotredici discorsi politici sull’attuale crisi economico-finanziaria, pronunciati da Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy e François Hollande. L’analisi di ARGO è mirata all’individuazione e alla descrizione di schemi argomentativi, “ragionamenti” stereotipati che vengono spesso usati in ambito politico per legittimare o screditare determinate posizioni. Alla luce della natura relativa dell’argomentazione, la presenza di schemi argomentativi estremamente eterogenei è stata ipotizzata sin dall’inizio del progetto. I risultati dell’analisi contrastiva confermano l’ipotesi iniziale, poiché Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy e Hollande fanno ricorso a diversi schemi argomentativi che richiedono l’utilizzo di diverse strategie interpretative a seconda dell’oratore in questione, del destinatario del discorso e del contesto in cui il discorso viene pronunciato. I risultati trovano pertanto utile applicazione in ambito didattico, poiché, insieme ad ARGO, forniscono materiale e indicazioni teoriche per sensibilizzare gli studenti a concetti argomentativi pertinenti all’interpretazione nella prospettiva di un graduale sviluppo della competenza argomentativa, intesa come l’abilità di anticipare le argomentazioni degli oratori. In maniera più generale, i risultati confermano la natura relativamente prevedibile dei discorsi politici; di conseguenza, avvalorano le implicazioni positive dell’analisi argomentativa dei testi di partenza in ambito interpretativo, il cui utilizzo sistematico è destinato a fornire risultati sempre più consistenti, affidabili e utili per promuovere la ricerca dell’equivalenza argomentativa nei testi interpretati.
Interpreting activity is frequently performed in argumentative situations, i.e. communicative events whose purpose is the discursive “solution” of a conflict between different standpoints regarding one specific question. In their attempts at defending and attacking standpoints, speakers generally resort to argumentative techniques which determine the pragmatic force of speeches. In this respect, argumentation is essentially relative, as it depends on cultural conventions, contextual constraints and subjective factors. The relativity of argumentation compounds the interpreting task, as the quality of the interpreter’s performance within argumentative situations is determined by his/her ability to convey the argumentative purpose of the source text by reproducing the speaker’s convictions. Failure to do so is bound to lead to the production of pragmatically inequivalent interpreted texts. Guided also by the intention partially to cater for the marked neglect of argumentation theories in interpreting research, the present research project focuses on political argumentation and pursues two main objectives: streamlining a suitable analytical methodology for the descriptive study of source-text argumentation in interpreting research and empirically assessing the relative nature of argumentation techniques with a view to providing suggestions for the interpretation of political speeches. The study is based on a multilingual comparable corpus named ARGO. It is composed of three hundred and thirteen political speeches on the current financial and economic crisis, delivered by Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande. The analysis focuses on the identification and description of content-related argumentation schemes, i.e. stereotypical patterns of reasoning recurrently exploited by politicians to legitimise or delegitimise given courses of action. In the light of the relative nature of argumentation, the presence in the corpus of significantly different argumentation schemes was hypothesised at the outset. The findings of the contrastive analysis corroborate the initial hypothesis, as Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy and Hollande generally resort to extremely different argument schemes, which call for the adoption of specific interpreting strategies according to the speaker in question, the communicative context of speech delivery and the relevant audience. The results, thus, find useful application in interpreter training, in that, together with ARGO, they provide material and theoretical indications to sensitise students to relevant argumentation concepts with a view gradually to enhance their argumentative competence, understood as the ability to anticipate speakers’ arguments. More broadly, the results shed light on the predictability of political speeches and, consequently, foster the systematic adoption of argumentation analysis as a source-text research methodology, which could yield increasingly substantial findings paving the way for argumentative equivalence in interpreted argumentative situations.
XXVII Ciclo
1985
MACAGNO, FABRIZIO. "Gli Usi argomentativi della Definizione." Doctoral thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10280/275.
Повний текст джерелаA new perspective on the problem of definition can be opened by an argumentative approach to this subject. Definition can be dialectically analyzed as an endoxon, namely as an aspect of common knowledge regarding the shared semantic-ontological structure. The dialectical definition can be the standpoint of an argumentation and be supported by arguments, or the premise of a rhetorical syllogism. In this case, the dialectical definition can be used argumentatively and persuasively. The characteristics of dialectical definition can be found inquiring into its origins, namely Aristotle's Topics. By interpreting this work in a predicate-argument perspective, it is possible to notice how genus-species definition is a instrument of semantic analysis, which is fundamental to understand the relation between logic and reasonableness in enthymemes and how definitions can be source of inferences. The Aristotelian tradition has been revived in the Latin and Medieval tradition by analyzing the relationship between different types of definition and their argumentative and persuasive function. In the framework of modern and contemporary argumentation theories, the dialectical definition can be considered the foundation for a new interpretation of a particular argumentative and persuasive strategy grounded on definition: the persuasive definition. Persuasive definition can be seen as a redefinition aimed at altering the inferences from values (or judgments of value) which can be drawn from the definiendum. The concepts of dialectical definition and persuasive definition allow one to examine the argumentative functions of definitions in the scientific, legal, and political communicative context.
MACAGNO, FABRIZIO. "Gli Usi argomentativi della Definizione." Doctoral thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10280/275.
Повний текст джерелаA new perspective on the problem of definition can be opened by an argumentative approach to this subject. Definition can be dialectically analyzed as an endoxon, namely as an aspect of common knowledge regarding the shared semantic-ontological structure. The dialectical definition can be the standpoint of an argumentation and be supported by arguments, or the premise of a rhetorical syllogism. In this case, the dialectical definition can be used argumentatively and persuasively. The characteristics of dialectical definition can be found inquiring into its origins, namely Aristotle's Topics. By interpreting this work in a predicate-argument perspective, it is possible to notice how genus-species definition is a instrument of semantic analysis, which is fundamental to understand the relation between logic and reasonableness in enthymemes and how definitions can be source of inferences. The Aristotelian tradition has been revived in the Latin and Medieval tradition by analyzing the relationship between different types of definition and their argumentative and persuasive function. In the framework of modern and contemporary argumentation theories, the dialectical definition can be considered the foundation for a new interpretation of a particular argumentative and persuasive strategy grounded on definition: the persuasive definition. Persuasive definition can be seen as a redefinition aimed at altering the inferences from values (or judgments of value) which can be drawn from the definiendum. The concepts of dialectical definition and persuasive definition allow one to examine the argumentative functions of definitions in the scientific, legal, and political communicative context.
Книги з теми "Schemi argomentativi"
Zaza, Carlo. La sentenza penale: Schema argomentativo, struttura, stile. Milano: Giuffrè, 2004.
Знайти повний текст джерелаGuida Alla Redazione Dei Pareri e Atti Di Civile e Penale per l'esame Di Avvocato: Metodo e Tecniche Argomentative, Forma e Stili Espositivi, Struttura e Schemi, Svolgimenti Illustrati. Independently Published, 2020.
Знайти повний текст джерелаRasia, Carlo. La crisi della motivazione nel processo civile. Bononia University Press, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.30682/sg283.
Повний текст джерела