Description and analysis of argumentative assimilation

Abstract

In this work, we present the description of an interactional and argumentative phenomenon that we have named “argumentative assimilation,” which represents the moment when two recalcitrant, antagonistic discourses begin to represent an argumentative alignment, due to the opponent’s adherence to the proponent’s speech. By revisiting rhetorical studies, we question the dichotomy “persuade” vs “convince” (Perelman; Olbrechts-Tyteca, 2008; Perelman, 1989, 1999, 2002; Meyer, 2008a, 2008b; Grize, 1995; Angenot, 2008), to demonstrate four stages of the argumentative assimilation process, via Venn’s Diagram. By using a methodology focused on the study of verbal interactions, and also supported by studies of conversational analysis and the Dialogical Model of Argumentation (Plantin, 2008, 2016; Plantin; Doury, 2015; Traverso, 2007; Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1992, 2011; Damasceno-Morais, 2021, 2022, 2023a, 2023b), we present an analysis of a case study, from the ‘TRIBUNAL’ database, which illustrates the phenomenon. We conclude that the study of argumentation from an interactional perspective is fruitful in helping us to understand similar phenomena, which would not be possible if we strictly followed studies of argumentation simply from a logical-mathematical and formalist perspective, in a Cartesian ideal.