Résumé en anglais

The analysis is led from the receiver’s point of view, no-one can tell in advance how the discourse he receives will make sense for him/ her. Thus, argumentation is not merely in the speaker’s intention. Besides, it also raises the question of lexical meaning in argumentative dialogue, and precisely how words work in accordance with their type. Our conception of meaning and types of words is elaborated from the receiver’s point of view, which can be said a “dialogical” point of view (Bakhtine-Volochinov, 1977: 146). François underlines that “thinking with words” can partly be defined as “searching to transform a notion into concept” (1994: 43), by analysing the notion, clarifying presuppositions, giving definitions, or distinctions, as well as examples or telling stories.Our study focuses on a debate at school about relationships with others. The data consists of a session of civic instruction in a primary school (2nd and 3rd level). The children were encouraged to interact and answer one another, so that they might find a non-violent solution to a conflict. In this school debate, the aim is neither to persuade the others nor to take the advantage. It’s a debate with a heuristic aim. The pupils learn to explore a notion through wording and dialogue. Favourable conditions have been created to allow them to propose a resolution together and to elaborate notional content. We remark that they do it by repeating former discourses and personal experiences, or given as such, that they success to create a discussion space which supposes listening and cooperation. We notice the importance of lexical meaning in the debate. We underline the relationships between the way the words work and their types. Words can be the support of a “move” (François, 1980, 2004), but not every word. Besides, the move is tied to the interpretative process, along the exchanges. Thus, the question of accentuation and interpretation arises: what is the good distance to interpret? What is the good distance to deal with notions? In this debate, pupils through their discursive moves express viewpoints they would not have said lonely. One can also notice the meeting of various worlds, world of the school, of the family, of history, of stories… and child-like points of view concerning values.