An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult-Children Discussions

| USI - Università della Svizzera italiana
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027208668 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027259936 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
This book traces the issue in argumentative discussions from its emergence to its evolution. The book makes use of naturally occurred data of spoken argumentation to investigate how an issue is raised and possibly negotiated in argumentative discussions between young children (aged 2 to 6 years) and adults. The author proposes a typology of the emergence of issues based on the argumentative agency of the interlocutors. Moreover, the investigation sheds light on how issues evolve through negotiation among the involved interlocutors and how issues may be related to the interlocutors’ endoxa. By applying an interdisciplinary approach including argumentation theory (the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion and the Argumentum Model of Topics) as well as sociocultural developmental psychology this work allows for a careful consideration of the many aspects that come into play when young children start or engage in an argumentative discussions with adults.
[Argumentation in Context, 19]  2021.  xv, 160 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of figures
ix
List of tables
xi
Abbreviations
xiii
Acknowledgements
xv
Young children as rational interlocutors: A perspective on family argumentation
Sara Greco
1–7
Chapter 1. The ‘issue’ in argumentative discussions between adults and young children
9–13
Chapter 2. Argumentation theory
15–35
Chapter 3. Perspectives on children’s argumentation
37–52
Chapter 4. Children’s argumentation within the family
53–61
Chapter 5. Case studies: The issue in young children’s argumentation in family: The issue in young children’s argumentation in family
63–103
Chapter 6. How issues develop during the discussion: The issue negotiation: The issue negotiation
105–121
Chapter 7. The relation issue – endoxon
123–134
Chapter 8. Conclusions
135–147
References
149–157
Index
159–160
“Rebecca G. Schär has written a smart and engaging book that skillfully mixes astute and detailed theoretical insights with real world practical examples. Children do argue, and Schär shows us how uncovering the issues they raise can help us learn about our own rationality as well.”
“Very young children don't need to wait to be taught argumentation: when adults consider them as potential rational interlocutors and grant them "thinking space", they can make sophisticated contributions to argumentative discussions and even take a leading role to address issues of concern. This opens a renewed perspective for psychology and education but also for theories of argumentation.”
References

References

Aakhus, M., Muresan, S. & Wacholder, N., & Bex, F., Grasso, F. & Green, N.
(2017) An Argument-Ontology for a Response-Centered Approach to Argumentation Mining. Proceedings of CMNA 2016, 40–40.Google Scholar
Alam, F. & Rosemberg, C. R.
(2014) Narración y disputas entre niños. Un análisis de argumentaciones tempranas. Cogency, 6(1), 9–31.Google Scholar
Andone, C.
(2013) Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arcidiacono, F. & Bova, A.
(2015) Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3–5 and 6–9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 40–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arcidiacono, F. & Pontecorvo, C.
(2009) Cultural practices in Italian family conversations: Verbal conflict between parents and adolescents. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(1), 97–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arcidiacono, F., Pontecorvo, C. & Greco Morasso, S.
(2009) Family conversations: The relevance of context in evaluating argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 79–92.Google Scholar
Arendt, B.
(2015) Kindergartenkinder argumentieren – Peer-Gespräche als Erwerbskontext. Themenheft in Den Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 62(1), 21–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Kindergartenkinder argumentieren über Besitz, eine Analyse kindertypischer Plausibilitätsstandards auf topischer Basis. In Meissner, I. & Wyss, E. L., Begründen – Erklären – Argumentieren, Konzepte und Modellierungen in der Angewandten Linguistik (pp. 47–64). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Arendt, B., Heller, V. & Krah, A.
(Ed.) (2015) Kinder argumentieren. Interaktive Erwerbskontexte und -mechanismen. Themenheft in Den Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 62(1).Google Scholar
Baker, M. J.
(2015) The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research: Dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Ed.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp. 175–199). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barth, E. M. & Krabbe, E. C. W.
(1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumtrog, M. D.
(2018) Reasoning and Arguing, Dialectically and Dialogically, Among Individual and Multiple Participants. Argumentation, 32(1), 77–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bose, I. & Hannken-Illjes, K.
(2016) Wie Vorschulkinder Geltung etablieren. Acta Universitatis Wratslaviensis Studia Linguistica, XXXV(3742), 119–136.Google Scholar
Bova, A.
(2015a) Children’s responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions. Ampersand, 2, 109–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4(1), 4–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The functions of parent-child argumentation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bova, A. & Arcidiacono, F.
(2013a) Invoking the authority of feelings as a strategic maneuver in family mealtime conversations. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 206–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013b) Investigating children’s Why-questions: A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 713–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) “You must eat the salad because it is nutritious”. Argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes. Appetite, 73, 81–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Beyond Conflicts: Origin and Types of Issues Leading to Argumentative Discussions during Family Mealtimes. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3(2), 263–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Interplay between parental argumentative strategies, children’s reactions, and topics of disagreement during mealtime conversations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 19, 124–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christopher, S.
(2015) I flussi comunicativi in un contesto istituzionale universitario plurilingue. Bellinzona: Osservatorio Linguistico della Svizzera Italiana.Google Scholar
Cigada, S.
(2016) Analyzing emotions in French discourse: (Manipulative?) shortcuts. In Danesi, M. & Greco, S. (Ed.), Case studies in discourse analysis (pp. 390–409). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
(2017) La sensibilità come pratica condivisa della ragione. In Nanni, P., Rigotti, E. & Wolfsgruber, C., Argomentare per un rapporto ragionevole con la realtà, strumenti per la scuola di argomentazione (pp. 71–87). Milano: Fondazione per la Sussidiarietà.Google Scholar
Craig, R. T.
(2000) “The issue” as a metadiscursive object in some student-led classroom discussions. In Hollihan, T. A. (Ed.), Argument at century’s end: Reflecting on the past and envisioning the future (pp. 64–73). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K.
(2005) “The issue” in argumentation practice and theory. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (Ed.), Argumentation in Practice (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crowell, A. & Kuhn, D.
(2014) Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danish, J. A. & Enyedy, N.
(2015) Latour goes to kindergarten: Children marshalling allies in a spontaneous argument about what counts as science. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 5, 5–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. & Munn, P.
(1987) Development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 791–798. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H.
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B. & Wagemans, J. H. M.
(2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B.
(2009) Fallacies and judgment of reasonableness, empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
(1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht / Cinnaminson: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S.
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tocaloosa / London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical background and contemporary developments. Mahwah, N. J., London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
(2017) Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fasulo, A. & Pontecorvo, C.
(1994) “Sì, ma questa volta abbiamo detto la verità”. Le strategie argomentative dei bambini nelle dispute familiari. Rassegna Di Psicologia, 3(XI), 83–101.Google Scholar
Felton, M. & Kuhn, D.
(2001) The Development of Argumentative Discourse Skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2 & 3), 135–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B.
(2011) Case study. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.), The Sage handbook for qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Freeley, A. J. & Steinberg, D. L.
(2009) Argumentation and debate, critical thinking for reasoned decision making (12th international student ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Golder, C.
(1996a) La production de discours argumentatifs: Revue de questions. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 116(1), 119–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996b) Le développement des discours argumentatifs. Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.
(2002) Designing issues. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (Ed.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 81–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, S.
(2011) Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, S., Miserez-Caperos, C. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
(2015) L’argumentation à visée cognitive chez les enfants. Une étude exploratoire sur les dynamiques argumentatives et psychosociales. In Muller Mirza, N. & Buty, C. (Ed.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 39–82). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Greco, S., Convertini, J., Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Iannaccone, A.
(2019) (Un)expected arguments? An analysis of children’s contributions to argumentative discussions in contexts pre-designed by adults. European Conference on Argumentation ECA, Groningen.Google Scholar
Greco, S., Mehmeti, T. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
(2017) Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation? A case study. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 193–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, S., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Iannaccone, A., Rocci, A., Convertini, J. & Schär, R.
(2018) The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences. Informal Logic, 38(1), 438–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greco, S., Schär, R., Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Iannaccone, A.
(2017) Argumentation as a dialogic interaction in everyday talk: Adults and children “playing by the rules” in board game play. International Association for Dialogue Analysis IADA, Bologna.Google Scholar
Greco, S., Schär, R., Pollaroli, C. & Mercuri, C.
(2018) Adding a temporal dimension to the analysis of argumentative discourse: Justified reframing as a means of turning a single-issue discussion into complex argumentative discussions. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 726–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grossen, M.
(2001) La notion de contexte: Quelle définition pour quelle psychologie? Un essai de mise au point. In Bernié, J.-P. (Ed.), Apprentissage, développement et significations. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Grossen, M., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
(1992) L’espace thérapeutique. Cadres et contextes. Paris & Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
Hauser, S. & Luginbühl, M.
(2015) Aushandlung von Angemessenheit in Entscheidungsdiskussionen von Schulkindern. Aptum, Zeitschrift Für Sprachkritik Und Sprachkultur, 11(2), 180–189.Google Scholar
Heller, V.
(2012) Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kinder in Familie und Unterricht, Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Heller, V. & Krah, A.
(2015) Wie Eltern und Kinder argumentieren. Interaktionsmuster und ihr erwerbssupportives Potenzial im längsschnittlichen Vergleich. Themenheft in Den Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 62(1), 5–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. Ed. Freese, J. H.
(Trans.). (1926) Aristotle The “Art” of Rhetoric. Cambridge MA, London UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, T.
(2014) L’argument d’autorité: Sa structure et ses effets. In Herman, T. & Oswald, S. (Ed.), Rhétorique et Cognition / Rhetoric and Cognition (pp. 153–183). Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.
(1986) Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In Ellis, D. G. & Donohue, W. A. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale, N. J., London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1987) Rational and Pragmatic Aspects of Argument. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A. & Willard, C. A. (Ed.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 217–227). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice. Argumentation, 29, 243–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S.
(1980) Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, S.
(1986) How to make an argument from example in discourse analysis. In Ellis, D. G. & Donohue, W. A. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, N. J., London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S.
(1981) Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1982) Conversational argument. A discourse analytic approach. In Cox, J. R. & Willard, C. A., Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205–237). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Jacquin, J.
(2014) Débattre, l’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Kalyan-Masih, V.
(1973) Cognitive egocentricity of the child within Piagetian developmental theory. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies, 379, 35–35.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D.
(1991) The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94, 810–810. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. & Udell, W.
(2003) The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1992) Activity types and language. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Ed.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings (1979th ed., pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Littleton, K. & Mercer, N.
(2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, E., Greco, S., Massaro, D., Schär, R., Manzi, F., Iannaccone, A., Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Marchetti, A.
(2018) Does a good argument make a good answer? Argumentative reconstruction of children’s justifications in a second order false belief task. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 13–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J. W. & Singh R.
(2015) Positioning in groups: A new development in systemic consultation. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(2), 150–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Migdalek, M. J., Rosemberg, C. R. & Arrúe, J. E.
(2015) Argumentación infantil en situaciones de juego: Diferencias en función del contexto. Propuesta Educativa, 24(44), 79–88.Google Scholar
Migdalek, M. J., Rosemberg, C. R. & Santibáñez Yáñez, C.
(2014) La génesis de la argumentación. Un estudio con niños de 3 a 5 años en distintos contextos de juego. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 19(3), 251–267.Google Scholar
Migdalek, M. J., Santibáñez Yáñez, C. & Rosemberg, C. R.
(2014) Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños: Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolares. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lingüística, 47(86), 435–462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, D.
(2010) Responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Controversia, 7(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
(2018) Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mortara Garavelli, B.
(1988) Manuale di retorica. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
(2009) Argumentation and education, theoretical foundations and practices. New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V. & Iannaccone, A.
(2009) Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Ed.), Argumentation and education (pp. 67–90). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. J., Katula, R. R. & Hoppmann, M.
(2014) A synoptic history of classical rhetoric (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nonnon, E.
(1996) Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration. Langue Française, 112(1), 67–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Préface. L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation. In Muller Mirza, N. & Buty, C. (Ed.), L’argumentation dans les contextes de l’éducation (pp. 1–11). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Palmieri, R.
(2014) Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, R., Rocci, A. & Kudrautsava, N.
(2015) Argumentation in earnings conference calls. Corporate standpoints and analysts’ challenges. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 120–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1958) Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Ed. de l’ Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
(1979) La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(1993) What is it that develops? Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 197–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Psychologie sociale de la construction de l’espace de pensée. Actes Du Colloque. Constructivisme: Usages et Perspectives En Éducation, I, I–65.Google Scholar
(2015) The Architecture of Social Relationships and Thinking Spaces for Growth. In C. Psaltis, A. Gillespie & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Ed.), Social Relations in Human and Societal Development (pp. 51–70). Basingstokes (Hampshire, UK): Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Arcidiacono, F., Breux, S., Greco, S. & Miserez-Caperos, C.
(2015) Knowledge-oriented argumentation in children. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Ed.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice (pp. 135–149). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Breux, S., Greco Morasso, S. & Miserez-Caperos, C.
(2014) Children and knowledge-oriented argumentation. Some notes for future research. In Gobber, G. & Rocci, A. (Ed.), Language, reason and education, Studies in honor of Eddo Rigotti (pp. 259–277). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Schär, R., Greco, S., Convertini, J., Iannaccone, A. & Rocci, A.
(2019) Shifting from a monological to a dialogical perspective on children’s argumentation. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Ed.), Argumentation in Actual Practice. Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context (pp. 259–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J.
(1923/1976) Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
(1926/1959) The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London / New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul (originally published in 1926).Google Scholar
(1926/1972) La représentation du monde chez l’enfant (4th ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (originally published in 1926).Google Scholar
(1929) The child’s conception of the world. Lanham: Rowan & Littleton Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
(1932) The moral judgment of the child. London: K. Paul Trech Trubner.Google Scholar
(1964) Six études de psychologie. Genève: Denoël, Gonthier.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.
(1966) La psychologie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. & Szeminska, A.
(1941) La genèse du nombre chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Plantin, C.
(1996) Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française, 112, 9–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. & Arcidiacono, F.
(2010) Development of reasoning through arguing in young children. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 19–19.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. & Maroni, B.
(2004) Discorso e sviluppo: La conversazione in famiglia come sistema di azione e strumento di ricerca sulla socializzazione. In Ligorio, B. (Ed.), Psicologie e cultura. Contesti, identità ed interventi (pp. 205–219). Rome: Edizione Carlo Amore-Firera Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Pramling, N. & Säljö, R.
(2015) The clinical interview: The child as a partner in conversation vs. The child as an object of research. In Robson, S. & Flannery Quinn, S. (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding (pp. 87–95). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rapanta, C. & Macagno, F.
(2016) Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M. & Gilabert, S.
(2013) What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Rees, A.
(1992) The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversational analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E.
(2006) Relevance of context-bound loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage. Argumentation, 20(4), 519–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Locus a causa finali. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 16(2), 559–576.Google Scholar
(2009) Whether and how classical topics can be revived within contemporary argumentation theory. In van Eemeren, F. H. & Garssen, B. (Ed.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E. & Cigada, S.
(2013) La comunicazione verbale (2nd ed.). Santarcangelo di Romagna: Apogeo.Google Scholar
Rigotti, E. & Greco Morasso, S.
(2009a) Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource. In Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (Ed.), Argumentation and education (pp. 1–61). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Guest Editors’ Introduction: Argumentative processes and communication contexts. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 5–18.Google Scholar
(2010) Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E. & Greco, S.
(2019) Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E. & Rocci, A.
(2006) Towards a definition of communication context. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6(2), 155–180.Google Scholar
Rocci, A.
(2009) Manoeuvring with voices: The polyphonic framing of arguments in an institutional advertisement. In van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 257–283). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rocci, A., Greco, S., Schär, R., Convertini, J., Perret-Clermont, A.-N. & Iannaccone, A.
(2018) The significance of the adversative connectives “aber”, “mais”, “ma” (but) as indicators in young children’s argumentation. Argumentation and Language, Lugano.Google Scholar
Rocci, A., Greco, S., Schär, R., Convertini, J., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Iannaccone, A.
(2020) The significance of the adversative connectives aber, mais, ma (‘but’) as indicators in young children’s argumentation. Argumentation and Meaning, Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1), 69–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosemberg, C. R., Menti, A., Stein, A., Alam, F. & Migdalek, M.
(2016) Vocabulario, narración y argumentación en los primeros años de la infancia y la niñez. Una revisión de investigaciones. Revista Costarricense de Psicologia, 35(2), 101–120.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D.
(Ed.) (1958) Aristotle Topica et Sophistici Elenchi (Ross, W. D., Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Säljö, R.
(1991) Piagetian controversies, Cognitive competence, and assumptions about human communication. Educational Psychology Review, 3(2), 117–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schär, R.
(2017a) Definitional arguments in children’s speech. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, XXV(1), 173–192.Google Scholar
Schär, R. G.
(2017b) On the negotiation of the issue in adult-children discussions. European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg.Google Scholar
Schär, R.
(2018a) On the negotiation of issues in discussions among small children and their parents. TRANEL (Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique), 68, 17–17.Google Scholar
Schär, R. G.
(2018b) An argumentative analysis of the emergence of issues in adult-children discussions [PhD Dissertation]. Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
Schär, R. & Greco, S.
(2018) The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and children. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric, 2(1), 29–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schär, R. G. & Greco, S.
(2016) The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and children. Earli SIG 26, Gent, Belgium.Google Scholar
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R. & Wyndhamn, J.
(2000) Heavenly talk: Discourse, Artifacts and Children’s Understanding of Elementary Astronomy. Human Development, 44(2–3), 103–118.Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B. & Baker, M. J.
(2017) Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren EDK
n.d.). The swiss education system. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from http://​www​.edk​.ch​/dyn​/16342​.php
Scott, J.
(2000) Social network analysis, a handbook (2nd ed). London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1992) Conversation. In Searle, J. R., Parret, J. & Verschueren, J. (Ed.), (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 7–30). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stein, N. R. & Bernas, R.
(1999) The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In Andriessen, J. & Coirier, P. (Ed.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, N. R. & Miller, C. A.
(1993) A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7(2), 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stein, N. R. & Trabasso, T.
(1982) Children’s understanding of stories: A basis for moral judgment and dilemma resolution. In Brainerd, C. & Pressley, M. (Ed.), Verbal processes in children (pp. 161–188). New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stump, E.
(Ed.). (1978) Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S.
(1958) The uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traverso, V.
(1999) L’Analyse de la Conversation. Paris: Editions Nathan.Google Scholar
Tredennick, H. & Forster, E. S.
(Ed.) (1960) Aristotle Posterior Analytics and Topica (Tredennick, H. & Forster, E. S., Trans.). Cambridge MA, London UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Völzing, P.-L.
(1982) Kinder argumentieren. Die Ontogenese argumentativer Fähigkeiten. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1933) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Marxists Internet Archive. www​.marxists​.org​/archive​/vygotsky​/works​/1933​/play​.htmGoogle Scholar
Walton, D.
(1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from authority. University Park: The University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(1998) The new dialectic, conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C.
(1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Zampa, M.
(2017) Argumentation in the newsroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ziegelmueller, G. W. & Kay, J.
(1997) Argumentation, inquiry and advocacy (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Subjects

Communication Studies

Communication Studies
BIC Subject: CFG – Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
BISAC Subject: LAN009030 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Pragmatics
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2021003382 | Marc record