Dialogue argumentation and education

history theory and practice 1st Edition

Baruch B. Schwarz
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/dialogue-argumentation-and-education-history-theory
-and-practice-1st-edition-baruch-b-schwarz/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Reflective Theory and Practice in Teacher Education 1st

Edition Robyn Brandenburg

https://textbookfull.com/product/reflective-theory-and-practice-
in-teacher-education-1st-edition-robyn-brandenburg/

Family Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice Samuel

Gladding

https://textbookfull.com/product/family-therapy-history-theory-
and-practice-samuel-gladding/

Environmental Law and Economics Theory and Practice 1

;b Edition Michael G. Faure

https://textbookfull.com/product/environmental-law-and-economics-
theory-and-practice-1-b-edition-michael-g-faure/

Quality of Teacher Education and Learning Theory and

Practice 1st Edition Xudong Zhu

https://textbookfull.com/product/quality-of-teacher-education-
and-learning-theory-and-practice-1st-edition-xudong-zhu/
Advancing Surgical Education Theory Evidence and
Practice Debra Nestel

https://textbookfull.com/product/advancing-surgical-education-
theory-evidence-and-practice-debra-nestel/

Understanding medical education evidence theory and

practice Third Edition Forrest

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-medical-education-
evidence-theory-and-practice-third-edition-forrest/

Empathy as Dialogue in Theatre and Performance 1st

Edition Lindsay B. Cummings (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/empathy-as-dialogue-in-theatre-
and-performance-1st-edition-lindsay-b-cummings-auth/

Public Relations History; Theory, Practice, and

Profession Cayce Myers

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-relations-history-theory-
practice-and-profession-cayce-myers/

Fashion Journalism History Theory and Practice 2013th

Edition Sanda Miller

https://textbookfull.com/product/fashion-journalism-history-
theory-and-practice-2013th-edition-sanda-miller/
 dialogue, argumentation and education
New pedagogical visions and technological developments have brought
argumentation to the fore of educational practice. Whereas students previously
learned to argue, they now also argue to learn: collaborative argumentation-
based learning has become a popular and valuable pedagogical technique across
a variety of tasks and disciplines. Researchers have explored the conditions under
which arguing to learn is successful, described some of its learning potentials
(such as for conceptual change and reflexive learning) and developed Internet-
based tools to support such learning. However, the further advancement of this
field presently faces several problems, which this book addresses. Three dimen-
sions of analysis – historical, theoretical and empirical – are integrated through-
out the book. Given the nature of its object of study – dialogue, interaction,
argumentation, learning and teaching – this book is resolutely multidisciplinary,
drawing on research on learning in educational and psychological sciences, as
well as on philosophical and linguistic theories of dialogue and argumentation.

Baruch B. Schwarz is the Isadore and Bertha Gudelsky Chair of Early Child-
hood Education at the Hebrew University.
Michael J. Baker is a research director (tenured Research Professor) of the
CNRS, the French National Centre for Scientific Research, working in the
Social and Economic Sciences Department of Telecom ParisTech, the French
National Telecommunications Engineering School.
 Dialogue, Argumentation
and Education
history, theory and practice

Baruch B. Schwarz
Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Michael J. Baker
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Telecom ParisTech, Paris

Foreword by Lauren B. Resnick with Faith Schantz

One Liberty Plaza, New York, ny 10006 USA

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107141810
© Baruch B. Schwarz and Michael J. Baker 2017
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2017
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
names: Schwarz, Baruch B., author. Baker, Michael J., author.
title: Dialogue, argumentation, and education : history, theory, and practice /
Baruch B. Schwarz & Michael J. Baker ; foreword by Lauren B. Resnick.
description: New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2017.
identifiers: lccn 2016020461 | isbn 9781107141810 (Hardback)
subjects: lcsh: Questioning. | Discourse analysis.
classification: lcc lb1027.44 .s34 2016 | ddc 371.3/7–dc23 LC record
available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016020461
isbn 978-1-107-14181-0 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of URLs for external or third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
To my father, Adi, with whom I dialogised without books,
and to my uncle, Rabbi Meïr Zini, who taught me
to dialogise with books.

To the memory of my mother, Marlene Baker (1938–2015),

who taught me to love books and music.
 Contents

List of Tables and Figures page ix

Foreword by Lauren B. Resnick with Faith Schantz xi
Preface xv
Acknowledgements xxi

1 Beginnings 1
2 Changes in the Role of Talk in Education: Philosophical
and Ideological Revolutions 24
3 Argumentation Theory for Education 56
4 The Pervasive Role of Argumentation According to
Progressive Pedagogies 93
5 Argumentative Interactions in the Classroom 135
6 Argumentative Design 182
7 Conclusions 225

References 247
Index of Names 279
Subject Index 285

vii
 Tables and Figures

ta b l e s
3.1 Walton’s (1989) types of dialogue page 78

fi g u re s
2.1 Socrates helps Meno’s slave to discover a geometrical property. 31
3.1 Example of a Toulmin argument structure. 64
3.2 Movements of generalisation in the Toulmin argument structure. 65
3.3 Categorisation of modern theories of argumentation. 68
3.4 Partial Toulminian representation of the artists’ argument. 71
3.5 Question, thesis and argumentative discourse. 80
5.1 A part of the blocks task. 158
5.2 Three dimensions of change of viewpoint relating to
argumentative interactions. 166
5.3 Heating ice to steam task sheet. 169
5.4 Tabular version of Toulmin diagram. 170
5.5 Modified diagrammatic version of Toulmin diagram. 171
5.6 Adaptation of the Toulmin model by Reznitzkaya and
colleagues (2007) for teaching philosophy to children. 174
6.1 Goal instructions for deliberative and disputative argumentation. 187
6.2 Example of a Digalo discussion map. 201
6.3 Main window of the moderator’s interface. 202
6.4 Awareness ‘chat’ table. Contributions are vertically organised
per discussant according to chronological order, and deletions
or modifications are marked with the help of strike-through
font and font colours. 203
6.5 ‘Is it dark or light on the moon location from which this picture
of the Earth was taken?’ 216

ix
 Foreword

Several years ago, I organized a conference on dialogic learning that

brought together scholars in a wide range of fields from across the world.
During the planning phase, my colleagues and I contacted scholars whom
we knew to be interested in the role of discussion and social interaction in
school learning and asked them to send us any evidence they had, pub-
lished or unpublished, on the effects of carefully orchestrated discussions
among students. The responses were startling. The data we were sent
included evidence that many students who were taught by dialogic
methods performed better on standardized tests than similar students
who did not have such discussion experience. The data also showed that
some students retained their learned knowledge for two or three years.
In some cases, they even transferred their academic advantage to a differ-
ent domain. The results raised many questions for me. These questions
have persisted through the assembling and editing of a volume (Resnick,
Asterhan & Clarke 2015) based on the conference, to which my friend and
esteemed colleague Baruch Schwarz contributed a chapter. The opportun-
ity to further comment on the parallel work that Schwarz and his colleague,
Michael Baker, were doing offered a chance to consider these questions in
a different light.
I have been interested in classroom talk since I was a young student.
Arguing with my classmates, when I was given the chance, was for me the
most exciting part of any lesson. At the University of Pittsburgh, I helped
to develop accountable talk, to define the kind of talk that meets stand-
ards for a good classroom discussion. This form of talk is accountable to
knowledge (getting the facts right even if it is a struggle to find the perfect
wording), accountable to reasoning (providing a rational justification for a
claim), and accountable to community (showing respect for the ideas and
feelings of others). By the time I organized the conference, I had been

xi
xii Foreword

immersed in classroom talk for years. Yet I was stunned by the evidence of
transfer and what it implied about the nature of intelligence. If learning
through discussion in a domain such as science can lead to higher scores
on an English exam, for example, then it seemed to me we had proof that
intelligence is learnable – the mind can grow. This seemed revolutionary in
a scholarly world that believes that people can get better at doing specific
intellectual tasks but that intelligence is a natural endowment.
Thinking this through, I also found at least a partial answer to a question
that had been puzzling me and my colleagues: Why was resistance to the idea
of accountable talk so strong? It could be that the requirements of testing –
currently a dominating force in education – favor teacher-centered talk and
tend to repress much student discussion. It could be because it is admittedly
difficult for teachers to manage discussions that have no clear end.
However, the transfer evidence led me to another possibility. Most
people hold a deep-seated belief that cognitive ability is fixed at birth;
therefore, only some children can learn to use complex forms of reasoning.
Why try to teach – or expect teachers to teach – in a way that allows all
children to debate and defend their ideas if only a few students have ideas
worth debating?
Often students themselves share these beliefs. In Chapter 1 of this book,
Baker describes French teenagers in a technical school who told him they
were the “bad students,” so naturally, they could not be expected to discuss
important social issues. My colleague, Sherice Clarke, interviewed Ameri-
can teenagers about their participation in discussions in a high school
biology class. Most seemed to believe the purpose of discussion was to
display knowledge they had already acquired. Unless they were “knowers,”
they did not have the right to speak. As a result, nearly half the class
remained silent over the observed period of six weeks.
The “right to speak” is intimately related to democratic ideals. The great
civil rights movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were
aimed at securing the right to vote for everyone. In the twenty-first
century, however, more is asked of citizens than regular visits to the voting
booth. Participation in a democracy depends on the ability to enter fully
into the public debates and discussions of the day. This means being able to
form a position based on evidence, counter a claim, persuade someone to
take another view of an idea, or convince another of the worth of a plan.
This means knowing how to keep a conversation going when the parties
deeply disagree. These are the skills that allow individuals to shape their
own destinies. The same skills will be needed for an educated citizenry to
reshape society.
 Foreword xiii

If we view the capacity to reason as a birthright, not as the purview of an

elite group, then we must offer opportunities to develop the skills of
argument (which are really the skills of reasoning) to everyone. The
question of how to accomplish that goal brings us to this book.
Schwarz and Baker provide a comprehensive view of how dialogue has
evolved through history and been positioned with regard to theories of
mind and the right to speak. They identify the need for supporting
argumentation-based learning with stronger theoretical foundations, and
they begin to provide such foundations.
Turning to the history of dialogue as a branch of philosophy, the
authors bring their knowledge of the various strains of argumentation
theory to bear on talk in the classroom. Their discussion (in Chapters 3
and 4) will be challenging for readers without a deep background in
philosophy, but the payoff for “staying the course” will be considerable.
This perspective allows the authors to analyze classroom dialogue with
different “tools” than those used by the typical researcher or teacher. One
could say that learning theory and argumentation theory engage in dia-
logue here and emerge in a newly integrated form. The new theory influ-
ences the authors’ discussion of how argumentation should be designed for
the classroom and their fascinating analysis of what is actually happening
when students argue to learn to argue.
By the end of this book, the authors have laid out the main lines of
a case for argumentation as a competency that all schools should teach –
because argumentation is central to democracy. As I write this, in
November 2015, I imagine what might have occurred if a copy of this book
had appeared on every café table in the Eleventh Arrondissement of Paris a
few weeks ago. Fewer guns, more arguments. Is that not an imaginable
paradise?

Lauren B. Resnick with Faith Schantz

University of Pittsburgh
 Preface

To our knowledge, this book is the first monograph on argumentation in

dialogue in education. We explore how students learn in specific teaching
domains by engaging in argumentative dialogues, as well as the conditions
for the emergence of such dialogues. Our main theme is thus arguing to
learn and moreover, arguing to learn together.
Our work has many inspirations, beginning of course, with the classics
in logic and argumentation. However, such theories deal mainly with – and
indeed originated from – the spheres of law, politics and the media, leaving
education and the learning subject aside. Given its domains of predilection,
argumentation theory tends to stress the distinction between acceptable
and unacceptable modes of reasoning and persuasive discourse, whereas it
is the constructive function of argumentation dialogue with respect to new
knowledge, that is important for education.
In modern times and in the domain of education, the most influential
work on argument has been that of Deanna Kuhn (see, e.g. The Skills of
Argument, 1991, or her more recent book for teachers, written with Hem-
berger and Khait, Argue with Me, 2014). Kuhn treats argument as an
abstract higher-order skill acquired gradually throughout development.
In other words, her work is about learning to argue. Most of the educators
interested in promoting argumentation in classrooms have been pro-
foundly influenced by Kuhn’s research, especially researchers in science
education (e.g. Erduran and Jiménez-Aleixandre 2007), who see argumen-
tation as a key skill in doing and learning science.
In their book entitled Arguing to Learn, Jerry Andriessen, Michael
Baker and Dan Suthers (2003) established a new research direction. With
respect to the work on ‘skills of argument’ just mentioned, the arguing-to-
learn approach is focused on the interactive dynamics at work in groups of
learners rather than on the individual. It focuses on interactive learning

xv
xvi Preface

processes involving argumentation in specific taught domains and class-

room contexts, with no a priori assumption that the processes involved are
either universal or else purely ‘cognitive’ (they are also communicative and
involve the interplay of interpersonal relations and affects). In practice, the
distinction between learning to argue and arguing to learn is not sharp
because the latter presupposes the former, and what can be learned from
arguing about a topic may in fact be of an argumentative nature (know-
ledge of the main views and arguments for and against them). But
researchers working on arguing to learn – as we already stated, this being
the subject of this book – aim to work from the argumentative skills that
students already possess, as people already well able to communicate with
others, and stress this distinction in order to demarcate themselves from a
pedagogical approach mainly targeted at the development of high-order
thinking skills. Arguing to learn has thus been identified as one of the key
processes of social learning in specific teaching domains. Argumentation is
now studied in situation instead of as an abstract skill to be acquired
(learning to argue) and applied anywhere and everywhere, as indeed is
the implicit and seemingly obvious view of the major theories of argumen-
tation. Arguing to learn is contextualised in the flourishing domain of
collaborative learning, as a sub-field that has come to be known as collab-
orative argumentation-based learning, across a variety of tasks and taught
disciplines. Huge developments in computer design have provided varied
computer supports for collaborative argumentation-based learning.
Over the past twenty-five years there have been several collective works
on collaborative argumentation-based learning in which we participated as
authors and as co-editors (Andriessen, Baker & Suthers 2003; Andriessen
& Coirier, 1999; Baker, Andriessen & Järvelä 2013; Ludvigsen, Lund, Ras-
mussen & Säljö 2010; Muller Mirza & Perret-Clermont 2009; Schwarz,
Dreyfus & Hershkowitz 2009). All these books are collections of separate
articles, many of which deal with arguing to learn and related topics such
as the roles of emotion and tool mediation. The process of the writing of
these books was extremely influential on us as the background for the
writing of this book. Conferences that gathered together all contributors
preceded the writing of the chapters of each book. During each conference,
we found ourselves immersed in a wonderful outburst of ideas in various
domains: educational psychology, social psychology, socio-cultural theor-
ies, computer design and of course, informal logic and theories of argu-
mentation. Although such a disparate list of domains could have led us to
feel confused or eclectic, we felt that these conferences helped in creating a
new scientific community around something big – a new domain that we
 Preface xvii

had difficulties in defining, but that united people from different domains.
However, when each of us turned to the writing of our chapters the
compartmentalisation of domains dominated. Indeed, as contributors to
all these books we felt that the chapters did not present an integrative view
that combines learning, dialogue and argumentation because each of the
contributors adopted his or her view on learning, dialogue and argumen-
tation. No through-written book existed that could serve as a common
reference for the emerging domain of argumentation and education. Also,
during the last five years our discomfort about the absence of suitable
references increased considerably in the light of the impressive number of
articles published on argumentation in learning contexts. In addition, the
ubiquitous use of social networks by young people in debates or in
discussions – for better and for worse – brings the study of new forms of
argumentation to the fore of educational issues.
We therefore felt that there was a need for a through-written book on
argumentation in collaborative learning contexts. This book is an attempt
to synthesise and extend what we have absorbed and learned over the last
twenty-five years on dialogue, argumentation and education. We feel that
we are the instruments of a growing society that seeks to establish its
identity. However, the literal explosion of research in argumentation in
learning contexts during the last decade turned our enterprise into an
almost impossible challenge. We are aware that many research efforts
have not been included in this book, primarily due to our inability to
cope with an exponential number of publications. We have not been
exhaustive for another reason. It is not only the number of publications
but also the new directions that are so diverse that they cannot reasonably
been inserted into one book. An example of this diversity is the use of
social networks. The kinds of discussions between young people that
develop in and out of schools are relevant to education. Propaganda,
violence and demagogy are involved in social network discussions that
can impinge on the opinions or actions of children or adolescents for better
and for worse. We have hardly touched on this immensely important topic
which is obviously relevant to the general themes of this book. We could
also have reviewed very interesting research on argumentation in multi-
cultural educational contexts, a highly relevant topic in Western countries.
However, reviewing research on these and other extremely interesting
topics would have made our book too eclectic and too complex and
indeed too big.
Although this book is about argumentation in learning contexts and
therefore might be expected to be purely a work of educational psychology,
xviii Preface

the title of the book, Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History,

Theory and Practice, is intended to indicate that we also include general
theoretical perspectives from philosophy and language sciences on dia-
logue and argumentation themselves, as well as their inscription in educa-
tional practices throughout modern history. This is therefore a resolutely
multidisciplinary book. Readers interested in results of research in psych-
ology and educational sciences on how students learn in argumentation
dialogue and how situations that favour this may be designed may wish to
consult mostly the later chapters of this book. We hope however, that they
will also be interested in the earlier chapters on dialogue and argumenta-
tion theory. We included them here because, although references to both
dialogue and argumentation have become very frequent in modern peda-
gogical approaches, they are often based on largely intuitive or everyday
notions of these phenomena. We believe therefore, that a few reminders of
more precise theoretically motivated definitions of dialogue and argumen-
tation may be of some use.
As our scientific community grew we became aware of the fact that the
move towards dialogic and argumentative pedagogies involves an aspir-
ation to deep educational changes with societal implications. Such peda-
gogies are new with respect to the earlier part of the twentieth century. But,
as we describe here, they have a long history prior to this. Such a historical
perspective can guide future steps in instilling argumentative norms and
implementing argumentative practices in educational institutions. The
evolution of dialogue and argumentation practices in religious education
(notably within Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious education) and
secular education over the last two thousand years is relevant for those
who contribute to the promotion of new argumentative skills in education.
We hope that this will be a useful resource book for researchers,
students and teachers interested in these issues as well as designers of
educational technologies. Although we have invested efforts in maintaining
coherence between the very different chapters of this book, readers may
wish to focus on certain chapters at the expense of others. We took into
consideration the possibility of a selective reading by providing concluding
sections in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 that serve as short summaries for each
of these chapters.
Over the two preceding decades or more our ideas on argumentation,
dialogue and education have been shaped by collaborations with many
people. Pierre Dillenbourg created a framework in which the role of
argumentation in collaborative learning could be studied by his organisa-
tion in the 1990s of a ‘collaborative learning task force’ within the ‘Learning
 Preface xix

in Humans and Machines’ programme, financed by the European Science

Foundation. Over the years our closest collaborator in developing the
arguing-to-learn approach has been Jerry Andriessen at the University
of Utrecht, then at Wise and Munro Learning Research, with whom we
have published several co-edited books, book chapters and research papers.
In particular, for Michael Baker, the argumentation theorist Christian
Plantin has been a major influence over a period spanning a decade, within
the CNRS-ICAR Laboratory in Lyon. We thank Christian Plantin for his
careful critical and constructive reading of Chapters 2 and 3 of this book.
Since the 1990s the European Commission has funded many research
and development projects that helped us to participate in developing new
technologies for facilitating learning and teaching processes. Since the
beginning of the millennium, we worked on several such projects focusing
on arguing to learn: DREW, DUNES, SCALE, LEAD, ARGUNAUT,
ESCALATE and METAFORA. All of them yielded innovative environ-
ments with which we could envision new argumentative practices, among
them argumentative writing based on maps of previous discussions and the
subtle role of teachers in moderating groups of arguing learners. These
projects were opportunities to strengthen our growing society. For
example, through his participation in those projects Baruch Schwarz
interacted not only with omnipresent Jerry Andriessen but also with
Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont at the University of Neuchâtel. Such encoun-
ters brought forwards the perspective of social psychology to the study of
argumentation. With the perspective of time we recognise the importance
of the massive funding of the European Community that we have received
and express our gratitude for the trust that was put in our ideas.
Many people helped in the actual writing of this book over the four years
it was in the making. Amongst them we thank specifically Christa Asterhan,
Zvi Bekerman, Paolo Boero, Nadia Douek, Michael Ford, Christian Plantin,
Françoise Détienne, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont and Benzi Slakmon for
their precious detailed comments on several chapters of the book.
We also thank our contact at Cambridge University Press, New York,
Dave Repetto, for his immediate, continuing and always-friendly support.

references
Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (1999). Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing.
University of Amsterdam Press.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M. J. & Suthers, D. (Eds.) (2003). Arguing to Learn: Con-
fronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environ-
ments. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
xx Preface

Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J. & Järvelä, S. (Eds.) (2013). Affective Learning Together:
Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning (New Perspectives
on Learning and Instruction Series). London: Routledge.
Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in Science
Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research Series: Contemporary
Trends and Issues in Science Education. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-
4020-6670-2_5
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2014). Argue with me: Developing thinking
and writing through dialog. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I. & Säljö, R. (Eds.) (2010). Learning Across
Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices (New Perspectives on Learning
and Instruction Series). London: Routledge.
Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Eds.) (2009). Argumentation and
Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices. New York: Springer.
Schwarz, B. B., Dreyfus, T. & Hershkowitz, R. (Eds.) (2009). Transformation of
Knowledge through Classroom Interaction (New Perspectives in Learning and
Instruction Series). London: Routledge.
 Acknowledgements

Baruch Schwarz is grateful to the School of Education at the Hebrew

University which created a suitable ambiance for the writing of this book.
Michael Baker gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique and Telecom ParisTech during the
writing of this book. The authors thank Maya Resnick for her efficient and
kind help with preparation of the manuscript.

xxi
 1

Beginnings

Our past is always constructed in our present. The events we have lived
many years ago come to our memories with a significance that partly fits
our lives today. The madeleine Marcel Proust tasted with his tea in a
Parisian café did not simply bring back the bygone world of his holiday
at his grandmother’s provincial home but also created a new perspective
hic et nunc that fitted his current state of mind. And while the events
described in À la Recherche du Temps Perdu are quite anodyne, we are
captivated by Proust’s regeneration of these events.
We, the authors of this book, both now live far from the places where
we were born. We are both specialists in the study of a special form of
talk in education – in argumentation and learning. This might seem a
very narrow kind of specialisation, and indeed, the number of scientists
who focus on this topic is very small. However, scientists in the learning
sciences talk a lot about argumentation. It may even be said that
the term ‘argumentation’ is overused. It sometimes means discussion,
or debate, dispute, or simply talking together whilst exploring reasons
for or against an issue. One of the themes of this book is that types of
talk have distinctive learning outcomes and that what we call argumen-
tation dialogue is a very specific kind of talk with potentially considerable
learning outcomes.
This is our present state of mind. It does not come from nowhere.
It certainly comes from the general Zeitgeist that envisions education
through dialogue, far from authoritarian teaching. It also comes from the
teachers we met and who shaped our aspirations. But it also comes from
our past experiences, and since we are both interested in forms of talk, our
memories regenerate bygone events of our youth with the significance we
give them today. We thought that before beginning this book, we could tell

1
2 Dialogue, Argumentation and Education

a bit of our past histories, particularly in relation to dialogical and argu-

mentative practices or indeed their absence.

I (BBS) was born in Paris. Among my first memories as a young child was
the fur craft workshop that my father ran and that partly served as our
home. Many Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe organised them-
selves in groups of co-workers in workshops after World War II. Unend-
ing discussions took place in the workshop. I heard them discussing,
haranguing, or bickering in their broken French, Yiddish or Hungarian
whilst hammering leathers on large wooden boards. The topic of their
discussions was often politics, as post-war difficult times drew together
communists and anti-soviets. Although I did not understand most of what
was said, I felt that the discussions were not only about politics. Somehow,
they were not ‘about’ anything in particular but were rather a way for
these men to articulate themselves in a place where they still felt like
strangers. The tone was mostly passionate and often adversarial, but the
workers seemed to like it. I also felt that the prosody of the discussions
was different from what I heard outside. At that time, I attended an école
laïque, a typical state school with republican values. There we learned to
recite, to present, to be clear and precise, and also to avoid emotional
turns of phrase.
The maternal side of my family was Algerian. My uncle was a rabbi who
emigrated in 1962 after he flew from Algeria to France when independence
was proclaimed. He taught me the basics of the Hebrew language and of
biblical exegesis. I remember him incessantly asking me about the meaning
of verses. The invariable reaction to my interpretations was a challenge to
them or even a rejection. Since I was methodical, I tried to remember the
interpretations he suggested, but when asked about the same verse a year
later, the restitution of his own interpretations did not satisfy him. And his
(auto)objections seemed to me quite reasonable. My learning experiences
with my uncle were very different from those I had in school. The
difference did not concern only form but also the epistemological.
I experienced with my uncle the interpretation of texts as a divergent
and infinite quest, whilst at school it was clearly convergent and finite.
Very early on, at school, I learned to develop ideas in a thesis-antithesis-
synthesis pattern. And I liked it very much. And I also liked to translate
texts from Latin and Greek, believing at that time that understanding a
difficult text was a matter of using voluminous dictionaries well. To the
contrary, I felt quite irritated by Hebrew exegesis, according to which what
seemed to me to have been accepted was always called into question.
 Beginnings 3

I preferred what I grasped then as the sincerity and method of my experi-

ences at school to my encounter with Jewish texts.
My clear preference for the methods of thought that I learned at school
put me often in curious situations at home. I remember an anecdote that
struck me when I was an adolescent. I began being interested in math-
ematics and enthusiastically engaged in solving difficult mathematical
problems. My mother – a real Jewish mother, who must be aware of all
that her children are doing – asked me one day: ‘My son, could you tell me
what a polynomial is?’ I opened my mouth to answer in the way I had
learned at school, giving a clear definition, but I suddenly realised that such
a formal answer was senseless for her. I remained speechless and bashful.
She had been a seamstress for years in the workshop my father ran, and
like many immigrants, she had worked very hard to give her children the
opportunities to ‘succeed in life’ in a way that had not been available to her.
I felt guilty that I was . . . unable to tell her anything about the ideas
I manipulated daily, whose reality seemed to me evident. I was unable to
share with her my excitement about something I did intensively.
I began my university studies in mathematics. When I entered the École
Normale Supérieure, I used books such as the Bourbaki series that gave the
illusion of beginning from scratch towards the elaboration of sophisticated
constructs through deductive steps and definitions of new mathematical
notions. The memories from my studies with these books, taught by
illustrious mathematicians who wrote them, are still present in my mind.
I remember that the apparent simplicity of the writing concealed a very
high degree of complexity. Whenever I saw ‘it is clear that . . .’ in the
middle of a proof, I knew that I would probably have to invest a lot of effort
in order to see such a crystal-clear truth. Also, I never understood why new
ideas and new definitions were introduced. I should confess that these
books were too difficult for me. However, I was mesmerised by the beauty
of their presentation. I felt as if a secret was to be found therein and that
the reward of my efforts would be the revelation of this secret. In parallel
with my studies at the university, I began learning Talmudic texts. These
texts typically consist of protocols of discussions amongst sages. These
protocols often show undecided and open discussions and multi-level
commentaries on those discussions without clear definitions of the ideas
at stake. Although the mathematical and Talmudic worlds seem to have
several similarities, they are very different. The first relies on clear defin-
itions and inexpungible proofs. The second always leaves room for doubt
and for new directions. And as a young adult, although I appreciated both
worlds, I saw no connection between them.
4 Dialogue, Argumentation and Education

I enjoyed very much earning what is called the Agrégation de Math-

ématiques, a French certificate for teaching mathematics at the college
level. This certificate, which focuses on how to present/teach all possible
topics in undergraduate studies, reflects another positive aspect of
French education: the taste for encyclopaedic overviews of ideas at an
elementary level. For the first time in my higher education, after five
years at the university, I could understand the significance of ideas
presented very abstractly, as well as their usefulness. And like all my
pals, I became very fluent in lecturing on exciting ideas in mathematics
and telling stories about them. For the first time in my life, I could
speak mathematics.
I then began teaching mathematics in France and then in Israel at
various levels. My first experiences in different cultures and different levels
were frustrating. I failed to convey a sense of aesthetics in mathematics or
its appeal to rigour and method. I realised that mathematics learning in
classrooms is sown with failures or major obstacles, but I especially experi-
enced a very poor level of talk in mathematics classrooms. My mathemat-
ical stories were not of interest to my students, and I often failed to
understand them. Even so, I specialised in mathematics education, wrote
textbooks and elaborated computerised environments to help students
learn difficult ideas in mathematics almost only by themselves.
I completed a PhD in Mathematics Education. My supervisors, Maxim
Bruckheimer and Tommy Dreyfus, were mathematicians who had contrib-
uted to the promotion of mathematics education as a new research field.
However, I felt that in order to understand why and how children engage
in productive talk in mathematics, I should suckle from more general
breasts. My experience at the Learning Research and Development Center
(LRDC) at Pittsburgh University was a turning point in my career. The
center had been dominated in the past by influences of the cognitive
revolution (with Allan Newell and Herbert Simon at Carnegie Mellon
University in Pittsburgh). However, under the direction of Lauren Resnick,
LRDC instigated new directions in learning and instruction, especially the
incorporation of cultural psychology into the study of learning.
I capitalised on the extraordinary diversity of first-class scientists at LRDC
to complete my professional development in the learning sciences. To cite
only a few influences, I learned from Micki Chi, Gaea Leinhardt, Stellan
Ohlsson, Leona Schauble and, of course, Lauren Resnick during my post-
doctoral studies. Resnick’s article ‘Reasoning in Conversation’ (Resnick
et al. 1993) is certainly a landmark in the encounter between learning
processes and forms of talk. In the early nineties, the relations between
 Beginnings 5

forms of talk and reasoning processes were not articulated yet. However,
the word ‘argumentation’ was in the air.
My first studies after I was appointed at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem were dedicated to talk in mathematics classrooms. I hoped that
I could adapt general methods I learned at LRDC to mathematics. How-
ever, I quickly understood that the topic of mathematics is one of the most
recalcitrant to new forms of talk: it is too authoritative and too much
centred on logic and formal proofs. I began articulating a new pedagogical
vision. I began using the term ‘argumentation’, but I did not know exactly
what I meant by it, from an educational point of view. I remember very
well a beautiful cruise on the Ionian Sea in 1997. I took with me the
Fundamentals of Argumentative Theory by Frans van Eemeren and his
colleagues (van Eemeren et al. 1996). Each of the islands I visited was the
occasion for reading a new chapter. Sea (water), sky (ether), earth, and sun
(fire) – almost nothing else on those splendid and scorched places.
I finished the book at the end of my adventure, knowing that I had touched
the foundations of something big that would excite me in the future, but
I did not know how because the book was about well-established theories
with no apparent implications in education. However, I fuzzily felt that the
numerous references of the Fundamentals of Argumentative Theory to
Greek and Roman rhetoric could also mean that fruitful bonds could be
created with other cultures and especially with other contexts. I knew that
the educational context that was missing in the book was a new world to be
discovered and studied.
During the next years of my career, I realised that it is very difficult to
create conditions for productive argumentation. Somehow, the educational
system has lost a tradition of oral learning practises. Progressively,
I became aware of the fact that my Talmudic training bore very rich habits
of talk that had been gradually abandoned. In addition, I discovered that
I lacked definitions and theoretical tools to define what I envisaged by
argumentation in an educational context. Two encounters were decisive in
this matter. First, I spent a sabbatical at the University of Neuchâtel, where
I met Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont. My visit helped me to appropriate
tools from social and cultural psychology. My collaboration with her also
helped me to understand the work done by neo-Piagetians with respect to
socio-cognitive conflict and to realise that my interest in argumentation for
learning was theoretically and practically worthy. My encounter with
Michael Baker was a pivotal event in my scientific development. His
articles in 1999 and 2003 already bridged between the general argumenta-
tive theory and the learning sciences by focusing on changing the epistemic
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Bendix paced back and forth, perspiration shining wetly on his face in
the light from the overhead bulb. "It's not fair," he said huskily. "It's not
a true election. It doesn't represent anything." He looked at
Kimmensen desperately. "It's not fair, Joe!"
Kimmensen sighed. "All right, Jem. I assume you brought the
necessary equipment—the screwdriver, the insulation, and so forth?"

After another half hour, Bendix looked across the room at

Kimmensen. The removed panel lay on the floor at his feet, its screws
rocking back and forth inside its curvature. "Joe, it's still not enough."
Kimmensen nodded, listening to the totals on the receiver.
"How many are you switching now?" he asked.
"One out of every three Messerschmidt votes is registering for me."
"Make it one out of two," Kimmensen said harshly.

They barely caught up with Messerschmidt's total. It was a close

election. Closer than any Kimmensen had ever been in before.
Bendix replaced the panel. They put out the room light and climbed
back up to the ground level offices, bringing the chairs with them.
"Well, Joe, it's done." Bendix whispered though there was no one
listening.
"Yes, it is."
"A thing like this creeps over you," Jem said in a wondering voice.
"You begin by telling yourself you're only rectifying a mistake people
would never make if they had time to think. You set a figure—one out
of five. One person out of five, you say to yourself, would switch his
own vote, given the chance. Then you wonder if it might not be one
out of four—and then three.... Joe, I swear when I first suggested we
go down there tonight, I hadn't a thought of doing—what we did. Even
when I put the insulation and wire in my pocket, I never thought I'd—"
"Didn't you?" Kimmensen said. He felt disinterested. They'd had to do
it, and they'd done it. Now the thing was to forget about it. "Good
night, Bendix."
He left him and walked slowly through the corridors left over from
another time. He went down the front steps and out into the plaza.
He found Messerschmidt waiting for him. He was standing in the
shadow of the plane's cabin, and the plaza lights barely showed his
face. Kimmensen stopped still.
Messerschmidt's features were a pale ghost of himself in the
darkness. "Didn't you think I'd make spot-checks?" he asked with pity
in his voice. "I had people voting at timed intervals, with witnesses,
while I checked the running total."
"I don't know what you're talking about."
Messerschmidt nodded slowly. "Mr. Kimmensen, if I'd thought for a
minute you'd do something like that, I'd have had some of my men in
that building with you." His hands moved in the only unsure gesture
Kimmensen had ever seen him make. "I had a good idea of how the
vote would go. When it started right, and suddenly began petering
out, I had to start checking. Mr. Kimmensen, did you really think you
could get away with it?"
"Get away with what? Are you going to claim fraud—repudiate the
election? Is that it?"
"Wait—wait, now—Mr. Kimmensen, didn't you rig the vote?"
"Are you insane?"
Messerschmidt's voice changed. "I'm sorry, Mr. Kimmensen. Once
more, I have to apologize. I ought to have known better. Bendix must
have done it by himself. I should have known—"
"No. No," Kimmensen sighed, "forget it, Messerschmidt. We did it
together."
Messerschmidt waited a long moment. "I see." His voice was dead.
"Well. You asked me if I was going to repudiate the election."
"Are you?"
"I don't know, yet. I'll have to think. I'll have to do something, won't I?"
Kimmensen nodded in the darkness. "Somehow, you've won and I've
lost." Suddenly, it was all welling up inside him. "Somehow, you've
arranged to win no matter what decent men do!"
"All right, Mr. Kimmensen. Have it your way."
"Whatever you plan to do now, I'll be home. If you should need me for
a firing squad or some similar purpose."
Messerschmidt made an annoyed sound. "Mr. Kimmensen, you're
notorious for your dramatics, but I think that's going too far." He
walked away into the darkness.
Kimmensen climbed into his plane, sick at the night that covered him,
and furious at Messerschmidt's ruthlessly sharp mind.

There was no one at home. He walked methodically through the

house, doggedly opening Susanne's empty closets. Then he sat
down in the living room with the lights off, staring out into the starlit,
moonless night. He nodded sharply to himself.
"Of course," he said in the dark. "She'd be one of his timed voters."
Then he sat for a long time, eyes straight ahead and focussed on
nothing, every fold of his clothing rigidly in place, as though he were
his own statue.

CHAPTER VII
Until, hours later, orange flowers burst in the valley below. He came
erect, not understanding them for a moment, and then he ran out to
the patio, leaning over the parapet. On the faint wind, he heard the
distant sound of earth and houses bursting into vapor. In the valleys,
fire swirled in flashes through the dark, and against the glare of
burning trees he saw bobbing silhouettes of planes. Men were far too
small to be seen at this distance, but as firing stabbed down from the
planes other weapons answered from the ground.
Suddenly, he heard the flogging of a plane in the air directly
overhead. He jumped back, reaching for his weapon, before he
recognized Jem Bendix's sportster. It careened down to his landing
stage, landing with a violent jar, and Bendix thrust his head out of the
cabin. "Joe!"
"What's happening?"
"Messerschmidt—he's taking over, in spite of the election! I was
home when I saw it start up. He and his followers're cutting down
everybody who won't stand for it. Come on!"
"What are you going to do?"
Bendix's face was red with rage. "I'm going to go down there and kill
him! I should have done it long ago. Are you coming with me?"
Why not? Kimmensen grimaced. Why wait to die here?
He clambered into the plane and buckled his seat belt. Bendix flung
them up into the air. His hands on the wheel were white and shaking
as he pointed the plane along the mountain slope and sent them
screaming downward. "They're concentrated around the office
building, from the looks of it," he shouted over the whine of air. "I
should have known he'd do this! Well, I'm League President, by God,
and I'm going to settle for him right now!"
If you don't kill us first, Kimmensen thought, trying to check over his
weapon. Bendix was bent over the wheel, crouched forward as
though he wanted to crash directly into the plaza where Kimmensen
could see running men.
They pulled out of the dive almost too late. The plane smashed down
through the undergrowth behind the office building. Bendix flung his
door open and jumped out while the plane rocked violently.
Kimmensen climbed out more carefully. Even here, in the building's
shadow, the fires around the plaza were bright enough to let him see.
He pushed through the tangled shrubbery, hearing Bendix breaking
forward ahead of him. Bendix cleared the corner of the building. "I
see him, Joe!"
Kimmensen turned the corner, holding his weapon ready.
He could see Messerschmidt standing in a knot of men behind the
wreckage of a crashed plane. They were looking toward the opposite
slope, where gouts of fire were winking up and down the
mountainside. Kimmensen could faintly hear a snatch of what
Messerschmidt was shouting: "Damn it, Toni, we'll pull back when I—"
but he lost the rest. Then he saw Bendix lurch out of the bushes ten
feet behind them.
"You! Messerschmidt! Turn around!"
Messerschmidt whirled away from the rest of the men, instinctively,
like a great cat, before he saw who it was. Then he lowered the
weapon in his hand, his mouth jerking in disgust. "Oh—it's you. Put
that thing down, or point it somewhere else. Maybe you can do some
good around here."
"Never mind that! I've had enough of you."
Messerschmidt moved toward him in quick strides. "Listen, I haven't
got time to play games." He cuffed the weapon out of Bendix's hand,
rammed him back with an impatient push against his chest, and
turned back to his men. "Hey, Toni, can you tell if those
Northwesters're moving down here yet?"
Kimmensen's cheeks sucked in. He stepped out into the plaza,
noticing Bendix out of the corners of his eyes, standing frozen where
Messerschmidt had pushed him.

Kimmensen came up to Messerschmidt and the man turned again.

His eyes widened. "Well, Mr. Kimmensen?"
"What's going on?"
Messerschmidt grunted. He pointed up the mountain. "There they
are. I suppose they knew they had to move fast once I repudiated the
election. They began airdropping men about a half hour ago. They're
thick as flies up there, and they'll be coming down here as soon as
they're through mopping up. That ought to be in a few minutes."
"Northwesters."
"That's right, Mr. Kimmensen.
"Well."
Messerschmidt smiled thinly. "I suppose you've guessed Susie's at
my house?"
"Will she be all right?"
Messerschmidt nodded. "It's fortified. That's our next holding point
when we fall back from here." His face was grave.
"Isn't there any chance of stopping them?"
Messerschmidt shook his head. "None. They're military specialists,
Mr. Kimmensen. We don't have any trained men."
"I see."
Messerschmidt looked at him without any perceptible triumph in his
eyes. "It seems, Mr. Kimmensen, that they have men like us in the
Northwest, too. Unfortunately, theirs seem to have moved faster."
"What're you going to do?"
Messerschmidt looked up the mountain and shrugged. "Nothing. We
got some of them in the air, but the rest are down. We may have
weapons as good as theirs, but they know how to use them in units.
It's quite simple. We'll try to hold and kill as many as we can when
they come at us. We'll keep retreating and holding as long as we can,
and when we reach the sea, if we get that far, we'll drown."
Kimmensen frowned. "Their men are concentrated on that
mountain?"
"Yes."
"And you're just going to stand still and let the League be wiped out?"
"Just what, Mr. Kimmensen, would you like me to do?"
Messerschmidt looked at him in fury. "I don't have time to train an
army of our own. They've got us cold."
"Messerschmidt, I see eight men here with weapons."
"As far as anything we can accomplish goes, we might as well use
them to toast sandwiches."
"We can scour that mountainside. Down to bare rock."
Messerschmidt blanched. "You're joking."
"I am not!"
"There are people of ours up there."
"There are people of ours all through this area. When the
Northwesters are finished up there, they'll fan out and burn them all
down, a little bit at a time."
Messerschmidt looked at Kimmensen incredulously. "I can't do it.
There's a chance some of our people up there'll be able to slip out."
"By that time, the Northwesters'll be down here and dispersed."
Messerschmidt started to answer, and stopped.
"Messerschmidt, if you're going to do anything, you'd best do it
immediately."
Messerschmidt was shaking his head. "I can't do it. It's murder."
"Something much more important than human life is being murdered
on that mountain at this moment."
"All right, Kimmensen," Messerschmidt exploded, "if you're so hot for
it, you give the order! There're something like a hundred League
families up there. Half of them're still alive, I'd say. If the election's
void, you're still president. You take the responsibility, if you can."
"I can."
"Just like that."
"Messerschmidt, the defense of freedom is instantaneous and
automatic."
"All right, Mr. Kimmensen," Messerschmidt sighed. He turned to his
men. "You heard him. It's his order. Aim at the mountain." He bared
his teeth in a distorted laugh. "In freedom's name—fire!"

Kimmensen watched it happen. He kept his face motionless, and he

thought that, in a way, it was just as well he hadn't long to live.
But it was done, and, in a way, his old dream was still alive. In a way,
Messerschmidt's hands were tied now, for in the end the Freemen
defeated the trained armies and no one could forget the lesson in this
generation.
He looked down at the ground. And in a way, Messerschmidt had
won, because Kimmensen was dying and Messerschmidt had years.
That seemed to be the way of it. And Messerschmidt would someday
die, and other revolutions would come, as surely as the Earth turned
on its axis and drifted around the sun. But no Messerschmidt—and
no Kimmensen—ever quite shook free of the past, and no revolution
could help but borrow from the one before.
Well, Bausch, Kimmensen thought to himself as the face of the
mountain slowly cooled and lost color, I wonder what we'll have to say
to each other?
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BURNING
WORLD ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation