The investigation whose results we present to the reader deals with the application of logic (as a methodologic instrument) to analyze a form of educational discourse: i.e. the argumentative intervention. For this reason, this study takes into account a special meaning of the term "education", a meaning that refers to a praxiologic interpretation of this concept, an interpretation connected to the concept of educative intervention. Educative intervention refers to any human manifestation with a signal function, which received by an individual is liable to produce modifications in the field of human personality. Education is formed, in concrete, of diversified assemblies of educative interventions. Taking into account this meaning of the term "education", we join in the modem perspectives of the pedagogic research about the taxonomy of education targets (Bloom, Landsheere) that emphasizes action, change and effect in structurizing any educative activity.


In the proposed connotation, the concept of educative intervention - as an operational meaning of the term "education" - suggests the diversity of these interventions that have their origin in all the categories of signs with signal function which act on the receiver. But the major and most significant educative interventions for the destiny of human being are mainly produced by using linguistic signs structured and ordered in different types of discourse that cover the intension of the concept educational language. Even if the educational discourse takes different forms (argumentation, explanation, demonstration, description, and so on) we restrained our research to that form which seemed to be the most profitable for our exigency concerning the educative intervention, i.e. the argumentative discourse.


We suggest a semio-logic model of the argumentative discourse presented - as an explicative and predictive discourse - in three aspects concerning syntax, semantics and pragmatics of such a discourse. From a syntactic point of view we are concerned with delimiting the inner logic of the argumentative discourse stressed upon the analysis of discursive strategies of a speaker subject arranged by specific connectors called logic-discursive operators that correspond to the order and aims of the discourse. At the same time the "discursive logic" will successfully streak on the metadiscursive rules and operations for which the developing discourse has already become "logical object".


The logic-discursive operations permit a speaker to ask a receiver a coherent representation of argumentation. This "coherent representation" was called discursive schematizing and denotes the semantic dimension of argumentative discourse. The success of the argumentative discursive intervention is influenced by the realization of a discursive coherence following three basic conditions: the receptability of the discourse, the verisimilitude of discursive schematizing and the acceptability of the representations on that theme. From a pragmatic point of view we must emphasize that the argumentative discourse is a discourse of performance with a certain persuasive strength capable of placing it in the field of the educative interventions. Our analyses set up the rules of performative order and the logic structures where the opinable modalities manifest themselves as "pragmatic effects" of an argumentative intervention.


In discursive practice, the argumentative discourse is included in the so-called models of argumentation, so we try to classify them using the criterion of three-fold model of the interpretation of argumentative discourse.


Thus, we identify syntactic, semantic and pragmatic models of argumentation. For each type we analyze an argumentative model, i.e. the model of rhetoric syllogism (as syntactic model), the model of formalized language (as semantic model) and the model of cognitive intervention (as pragmatic model), trying to determine their impact on educative acts and educational discourse.


Starting from the elaboration of the model of rhetoric syllogism (Toulmin, Brandt, Apothéloz) this investigation tries a semiotic interpretation of the model that relates the sign-sentence (datum), significance-sentence (conclusion), substratum-sentence (foundation) and rule-sentence (the justifying). Determining the links between the "argumentative function" (C and R) and their arguments (x and y) using the formula revaluating the operation of affirmation and denial, we can obtain sixteen argumentative forms which are structured in well-determined logical structures.


On the basis of these structures we can determine immediate and mediate formulae of argumentation and, thus, the delimitation of certain classes of argumentation (real and not real, maintainings and rejections, counter-maintainings and counterrejections) is realized. The model revaluation in didactic argumentation tries to determine the way in which the formal rules adjacent to the model of rhetoric syllogism at different levels of intellectuals, especially at school level, are being aware of.

Relying on the establishment of the correspondence relations between certain constructs (valid rational schemes) and certain discursive realities (argumentative sequences of natural speech), the model of formalized language is more like semantics. This model, illustrated at his best by Oswald Ducrot, was reconsidered in the field of the virtues of the formalized language, i.e. to ensure a keen impact on certain categories of audience, of the delimitation of the argumentative values of formalizing and determining the frame where the formalized method manifests itself as a basic educative method.The analysis of the model leads to the formalized methodology applied to discursive segments of Fichte's Addresses to the German Nation and Montaigne's Essays.


From the category of pragmatic models, our analysis stressed the model of cognitive intervention. The clear intention of the authors (Albert Morf and Jean-Blaise Grize) is to create a theoretic specific and autonomous model of cognitive intervention where the concrete situations of cognitive intervention could be "immerged" and where specific particularities of such interventions could be brought out. The constructive effort is a part of the cognitive intervention model and it hints at the displaying of the logic connections manifested between the four parameters (Ro, Ri, Rt, Rf) within each type of cognitive intervention. There are connections materialized in conditional forms (sufficient, necessary) with pragmatic effects on the regulation of the efficiency mechanism of cognitive interventions The extension of the investigation beyond the frames analyzed by the model authors permitted the delimitation of a special meaning of the concept of "didactic explanation" related to what is usually understood as scientific explanation. The features presentation of the didactic intervention as cognitive intervention (the delimitation of logic relations between didactic intervention parameters, the integrality of this type of intervention, the aspiration to cognitive domains and the attachment to human cognitive stability) and the invitation in the analytic context of a "non-orthodox" form of didactic intervention are new elements used for determining the role of the cognitive intervention model on the didactic act.


The construction of a semio-logic model of the argumentative discourse, the semiotic tripartition of the argumentation models, the logic-semiotic redimensioning of rhetoric syllogism, the analysis of the formalized methodology as a model of argumentation, the logical interpretation of cognitive interventions and the delimiting of the impact of argumentation models concerning educational plan are showing, in our opinion, the modest contributions that the logic-methodologic investigation came up against the critical spirit of the reader.