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

image of An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of <i>Issues</i> in Adult-Children Discussions

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.


  1. 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 CMNA2016, 40–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alam, F. & Rosemberg, C. R.
    (2014) Narración y disputas entre niños. Un análisis de argumentaciones tempranas. Cogency, 6(1), 9–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andone, C.
    (2013) Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.5 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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. 10.1007/BF03173477
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173477 [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Arendt, B.
    (2015) Kindergartenkinder argumentieren – Peer-Gespräche als Erwerbskontext. Themenheft in Den Mitteilungen Des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 62(1), 21–33. 10.14220/mdge.2015.62.1.21
    https://doi.org/10.14220/mdge.2015.62.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  8. (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]
  9. 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]
  10. 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. 10.1075/aic.9.10bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.10bak [Google Scholar]
  11. Barth, E. M. & Krabbe, E. C. W.
    (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110839807
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110839807 [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumtrog, M. D.
    (2018) Reasoning and Arguing, Dialectically and Dialogically, Among Individual and Multiple Participants. Argumentation, 32(1), 77–98. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9420‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9420-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bose, I. & Hannken-Illjes, K.
    (2016) Wie Vorschulkinder Geltung etablieren. Acta Universitatis Wratslaviensis Studia Linguistica, XXXV(3742), 119–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bova, A.
    (2015a) Children’s responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions. Ampersand, 2, 109–109. 10.1016/j.amper.2015.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2015.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  15. (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. 10.1075/jaic.4.1.01bov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.01bov [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) The functions of parent-child argumentation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑20457‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20457-0 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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. 10.1002/casp.2113
    https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2113 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013b) Investigating children’s Why-questions: A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 713–734. 10.1177/1461445613490013
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613490013 [Google Scholar]
  19. (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. 10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  20. (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. 10.1075/jlac.3.2.02bov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.2.02bov [Google Scholar]
  21. (2018) Interplay between parental argumentative strategies, children’s reactions, and topics of disagreement during mealtime conversations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 19, 124–124. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christopher, S.
    (2015) I flussi comunicativi in un contesto istituzionale universitario plurilingue. Bellinzona: Osservatorio Linguistico della Svizzera Italiana.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. (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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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. 10.1075/cvs.2.03cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.03cra [Google Scholar]
  27. Crowell, A. & Kuhn, D.
    (2014) Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363–381. 10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dunn, J. & Munn, P.
    (1987) Development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 791–798. 10.1037/0012‑1649.23.6.791
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.6.791 [Google Scholar]
  30. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. 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. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 [Google Scholar]
  33. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R.
    (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht / Cinnaminson: Foris. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. van Eemeren, F. H. , Grootendorst, R. , Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S.
    (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tocaloosa / London: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 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]
  38. van Eemeren, F. H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2017) Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Felton, M. & Kuhn, D.
    (2001) The Development of Argumentative Discourse Skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2 & 3), 135–153. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_03 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. Golder, C.
    (1996a) La production de discours argumentatifs: Revue de questions. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 116(1), 119–134. 10.3406/rfp.1996.1196
    https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1996.1196 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1996b) Le développement des discours argumentatifs. Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9948‑1_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_7 [Google Scholar]
  46. Greco Morasso, S.
    (2011) Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.3 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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. 10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 10.22329/il.v38i4.5029
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i4.5029 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. 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. 10.1177/1461445618770480
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770480 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]
  54. 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]
  55. Grossen, M. , & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
    (1992) L’espace thérapeutique. Cadres et contextes. Paris & Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hauser, S. & Luginbühl, M.
    (2015) Aushandlung von Angemessenheit in Entscheidungsdiskussionen von Schulkindern. Aptum, Zeitschrift Für Sprachkritik Und Sprachkultur, 11(2), 180–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Heller, V.
    (2012) Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kinder in Familie und Unterricht, Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Henderson, J. ( Ed. ), Freese, J. H.
    (Trans.). (1926) Aristotle The “Art” of Rhetoric. Cambridge MA, London UK: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 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. 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0271‑7/16
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0271-7/16 [Google Scholar]
  61. 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]
  62. (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 Argumentation1986 (pp.217–227). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 10.1515/9783110867718.217
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867718.217 [Google Scholar]
  63. (2015) Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice. Argumentation, 29, 243–243. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
  64. Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S.
    (1980) Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–251. 10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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]
  66. 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. 10.1080/10570318109374035
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318109374035 [Google Scholar]
  67. (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]
  68. Jacquin, J.
    (2014) Débattre, l’argumentation et l’identité au cœur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 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]
  70. Kuhn, D.
    (1991) The skills of argument. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511571350
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2000) Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00088
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00088 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2010) Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94, 810–810. 10.1002/sce.20395
    https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395 [Google Scholar]
  73. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W.
    (2003) The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. 10.1111/1467‑8624.00605
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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]
  75. Littleton, K. & Mercer, N.
    (2013) Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203809433
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809433 [Google Scholar]
  76. 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. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Matthews, J. W. & Singh R.
    (2015) Positioning in groups: A new development in systemic consultation. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(2), 150–158. 10.1080/02667363.2014.997870
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2014.997870 [Google Scholar]
  78. 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]
  79. 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]
  80. 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. 10.4067/S0718‑09342014000300005
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342014000300005 [Google Scholar]
  81. Mohammed, D.
    (2010) Responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Controversia, 7(1), 57–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. (2018) Argumentation in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.15 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mortara Garavelli, B.
    (1988) Manuale di retorica. Milano: Bompiani.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Muller Mirza, N. & Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
    (2009) Argumentation and education, theoretical foundations and practices. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3 [Google Scholar]
  85. 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. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  86. Murphy, J. J. , Katula, R. R. & Hoppmann, M.
    (2014) A synoptic history of classical rhetoric (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Nonnon, E.
    (1996) Activités argumentatives et élaboration de connaissances nouvelles: Le dialogue comme espace d’exploration. Langue Française, 112(1), 67–87. 10.3406/lfr.1996.5361
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1996.5361 [Google Scholar]
  88. (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]
  89. Palmieri, R.
    (2014) Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.8 [Google Scholar]
  90. 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. 10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  91. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
    (1958) Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Ed. de l’ Université de Bruxelles.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Perret-Clermont, A.-N.
    (1979) La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. (1993) What is it that develops?Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 197–205. 10.1080/07370008.1993.9649020
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1993.9649020 [Google Scholar]
  94. (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]
  95. (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. 10.1057/9781137400994_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137400994_4 [Google Scholar]
  96. 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. 10.1075/aic.9.08per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.08per [Google Scholar]
  97. 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]
  98. 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. 10.1075/aic.17.12per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.12per [Google Scholar]
  99. Piaget, J.
    (1923/1976) Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. (1926/1959) The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London / New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul (originally published in 1926).
    [Google Scholar]
  101. (1926/1972) La représentation du monde chez l’enfant (4th ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (originally published in 1926).
    [Google Scholar]
  102. (1929) The child’s conception of the world. Lanham: Rowan & Littleton Publishers Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. (1932) The moral judgment of the child. London: K. Paul Trech Trubner.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. (1964) Six études de psychologie. Genève: Denoël, Gonthier.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.
    (1966) La psychologie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Piaget, J. & Szeminska, A.
    (1941) La genèse du nombre chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Plantin, C.
    (1996) Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française, 112, 9–9. 10.3406/lfr.1996.5358
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1996.5358 [Google Scholar]
  108. (2005) L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Pontecorvo, C. & Arcidiacono, F.
    (2010) Development of reasoning through arguing in young children. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 19–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 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]
  111. 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]
  112. Rapanta, C. & Macagno, F.
    (2016) Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–142. 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  113. 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. 10.3102/0034654313487606
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606 [Google Scholar]
  114. van Rees, A.
    (1992) The use of language in conversation. An introduction to research in conversational analysis. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Rigotti, E.
    (2006) Relevance of context-bound loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage. Argumentation, 20(4), 519–540. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9034‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9034-2 [Google Scholar]
  116. (2008) Locus a causa finali. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 16(2), 559–576.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. (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. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  118. Rigotti, E. & Cigada, S.
    (2013) La comunicazione verbale (2nd ed.). Santarcangelo di Romagna: Apogeo.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 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. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  120. (2009b) Guest Editors’ Introduction: Argumentative processes and communication contexts. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 5–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. (2010) Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. 10.1007/s10503‑010‑9190‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9190-7 [Google Scholar]
  122. Rigotti, E. & Greco, S.
    (2019) Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rigotti, E. & Rocci, A.
    (2006) Towards a definition of communication context. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6(2), 155–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 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. 10.1075/aic.1.15roc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.15roc [Google Scholar]
  125. 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]
  126. 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. 10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc [Google Scholar]
  127. 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]
  128. Ross, W. D.
    (Ed.) (1958) Aristotle Topica et Sophistici Elenchi (Ross, W. D., Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/actrade/9780198145165.book.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198145165.book.1 [Google Scholar]
  129. Säljö, R.
    (1991) Piagetian controversies, Cognitive competence, and assumptions about human communication. Educational Psychology Review, 3(2), 117–126. 10.1007/BF01417923
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01417923 [Google Scholar]
  130. Schär, R.
    (2017a) Definitional arguments in children’s speech. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, XXV(1), 173–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Schär, R. G.
    (2017b) On the negotiation of the issue in adult-children discussions. European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 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]
  133. Schär, R. G.
    (2018b) An argumentative analysis of the emergence of issues in adult-children discussions [PhD Dissertation]. Università della Svizzera italiana.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 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. 10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103 [Google Scholar]
  135. Schär, R. G. & Greco, S.
    (2016) The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and children. Earli SIG 26, Gent, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 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]
  137. Schwarz, B. B. & Baker, M. J.
    (2017) Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316493960
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316493960 [Google Scholar]
  138. Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren EDK
    Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren EDK. (n.d.). The swiss education system. Retrieved March 11, 2017, fromwww.edk.ch/dyn/16342.php
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Scott, J.
    (2000) Social network analysis, a handbook (2nd ed). London: Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 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. 10.1075/pbns.21.02sea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.02sea [Google Scholar]
  141. 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]
  142. 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. 10.1007/BF00710664
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710664 [Google Scholar]
  143. 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. 10.1007/978‑1‑4613‑9475‑4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9475-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  144. Stump, E.
    (Ed.). (1978) Boethius’s “De topicis differentiis.”Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Toulmin, S.
    (1958) The uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Traverso, V.
    (1999) L’Analyse de la Conversation. Paris: Editions Nathan.
    [Google Scholar]
  147. 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]
  148. Völzing, P.-L.
    (1982) Kinder argumentieren. Die Ontogenese argumentativer Fähigkeiten. Paderborn: Schöningh.
    [Google Scholar]
  149. 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.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Walton, D.
    (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from authority. University Park: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  151. (1998) The new dialectic, conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442681859
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442681859 [Google Scholar]
  152. Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C.
    (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Zampa, M.
    (2017) Argumentation in the newsroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/aic.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.13 [Google Scholar]
  154. Ziegelmueller, G. W. & Kay, J.
    (1997) Argumentation, inquiry and advocacy (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error