Abstract
This paperdiscusses that using a textual approach to study social representations in arguments could help
to better understand the relationships among naturalized discourse and argumentation. To naturalize an
utterance,i.e. to make it commonsensical, is to give an arbitrary utterance the quality of “true” without
questioning the ideological context which frames -and, therefore, gives meaning- to that utterance.
Naturalized discourse is discourse that has become commonsensical even though it has actually been
framed by the values and beliefs of a given social group. This paper argues that using critical discourse
analysis (CDA) to study discourseat the textual level might be useful to find how social representations
could affect the strength of an argument.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).