TY - JOUR
AU1 - Doury, Marianne
AB - Argumentation (2010) 24:255–257 DOI 10.1007/s10503-009-9177-4 Emmanuelle Danblon, Emmanuel de Jonge, Ekaterina Kissina & Loı ¨c Nicolas (eds): Review of Argumentation et narration Editions of the University of Brussels, 2008 Marianne Doury Published online: 23 January 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 The collective volume edited by E. Danblon et al. proposes a reconceptualisation of the opposition between narration and argumentation. More often than not the two are studied separately as two distinct textual types characterized by different designs: narration as aiming at organizing events discursively into a narrative that renders them intelligible; argumentation as aiming at persuading, often in support of decision making processes. Though (at first sight) convenient and intuitively satisfying, such a distinction requires being qualified when one seeks to account for empirical data. Argumentation et narration is the inaugural publication of GRAL (Groupe de Recherches en Rhe ´torique et en Argumentation Linguistique, Free University of Brussels). It investigates the relationship between the two discursive registers from a multidisciplinary perspective, involving law, philosophy, bioethics, analysis of political and literary discourse. The book is organized into four parts. The first part includes studies on political discourses. It focuses on the role of paradeigma in deliberative argumentation (texts by 
TI - Emmanuelle Danblon, Emmanuel de Jonge, Ekaterina Kissina & Loïc Nicolas (eds): Review of Argumentation et narration
JF - Argumentation
DO - 10.1007/s10503-009-9177-4
DA - 2010-01-23
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/emmanuelle-danblon-emmanuel-de-jonge-ekaterina-kissina-lo-c-nicolas-3GwMl3VhIM
SP - 255
EP - 257
VL - 24
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -