1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Adversative connectives have been analyzed as articulating explicit and implicit facets of argumentative moves and have been thus recognized as potential argumentative indicators. Here we examine adversative connectives Ger. , Fr. , It. (‘but’) in young children’s speech in the context of the ArgImp project, a research endeavor seeking to understand in which situations children aged between two and six years engage in argumentation and how their contributions are structured. Two multilingual corpora have been collected for the project: (1) everyday family conversations, (2) semi-structured play activities and problem solving in a kindergarten setting. Through the detailed analysis of a small collection of examples, we consider the indicative potential of adversative connectives for identifying argumentative episodes in interactions involving young children and for the reconstruction of the inferential configurations of children’s contributions to these argumentative discussions. The results show that fully fledged argumentative interpretations of adversatives occur as a possibility in children’s speech, and that adversative connectives can be used profitably to identify less apparent argumentative confrontations and implicit standpoints in children’s speech.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
2020-05-04
2020-10-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akiguet, Sylvie and Annie Piolat
    1996 “Insertion of Connectives by 9- to 11-Year-Old Children in an Argumentative Text”. Argumentation10(2): 253–270. 10.1007/BF00180728
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180728 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot
    1977 “Deux mais en français?”. Lingua43(1): 23–40. 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides
    2003Logics of Conversation. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Convertini, Joséphine
    2019 Contributo allo studio dei tipi di argomento in situazioni di problem solving tecnico da parte di bambini in età prescolare. PhD dissertation. University of Neuchâtel.
  5. Ducrot, Oswald, Sylvie Bruxelles, Eric Fouquier, Jean Gouazé, Géraldo dos Reis Nunez, and Anna Rémis
    1980 “Mais occupe-toi d’Amélie”. InLes mots du discours, ed. byOswald Ducrot , 93–130. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Freeman, James B.
    1991Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure. Berlin/New York: Foris. 10.1515/9783110875843
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110875843 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2011Argument Structure: Representation and Theory. Amsterdam: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑0357‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5 [Google Scholar]
  8. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2013 “Multivoiced decisions. A study of migrants’ inner dialogue and its connection to social argumentation”. Pragmatics and Cognition21 (1): 55–80. 10.1075/pc.21.1.03mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.03mor [Google Scholar]
  9. Greco, Sara, Rebecca Schär, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont and Antonio Iannaccone (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) conference, Bologna, October 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Greco Sara, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Antonio Iannaccone, Andrea Rocci, Joséphine Convertini and Rebecca Schär
    2018 “The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences”. Informal Logic38(4): 438–470. 10.22329/il.v38i4.5029
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i4.5029 [Google Scholar]
  11. Greco, Sara
    2017 “Using Argumentative Tools to Understand Inner Dialogue”. Argumentation31(2):331–358. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9408‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9408-4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Kehler, Andrew
    2002Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Moeschler, Jacques
    1989Modélisation du dialogue: représentation de l’inférence argumentative. Paris: Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mondada, Lorenza
    2005 « L’analyse de corpus en linguistique interactionnelle: de l’étude de cas singuliers à l’étude de collections”. InSémantique et corpus, ed. byAnne Condamines, 76–108. Paris: Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nølke, Henning, Kjersti Fløttum and Coco Norén
    2004ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Peldszus, Andreas and Manfred Stede
    2013 “From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey”. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI)7(1):1–31. 10.4018/jcini.2013010101
    https://doi.org/10.4018/jcini.2013010101 [Google Scholar]
  17. Peterson, Carole
    1986 “Semantic and Pragmatic Uses of ‘but’”. Journal of Child Language13(3):583–590. 10.1017/S0305000900006905
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006905 [Google Scholar]
  18. Piaget, Jean
    1980Les formes élémentaires de la dialectique. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pollock, John L.
    1987 “Defeasible Reasoning”. Cognitive Science11(4):481–518. 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Rigotti, Eddo and Sara Greco
    2019Inference in Argumentation: A topics-based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rocci, Andrea and Carlo Raimondo
    2017 “Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls: the Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI)”. InArgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II), ed. bySteve Oswald and Didier Maillat, 699–715. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rocci, Andrea
    . In press. The Language of Argumentation ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen and Maarten van Leeuwen. Springer.
  23. Schär, Rebbeca
    2018 An argumentative analysis of the emergence of issues in adult-children discussions. PhD dissertation. Lugano: USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.
  24. Schär, Rebecca and Sara Greco
    2018 “The emergence of argumentative issues in everyday discussions between adults and children”. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric2(1):29–43. 10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSVR.2018010103 [Google Scholar]
  25. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca
    1995 “‘But’as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions”. Leuvense Bijdragen84:1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Spooren, Wilbert and Ted Sanders
    2008 “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics40(12):2003–2026. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  27. Umbach, Carla
    2005 “Contrast and Information Structure: A Focus-Based Analysis of but.” Linguistics43(1):1–22. 10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2005.43.1.207 [Google Scholar]
  28. van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  30. van Rees, Agnes
    1992The Use of Language in Conversation. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Winterstein, Grégoire
    2012 “What but-sentences argue for: An argumentative analysis of but”. Lingua, 122(15): 1864–1885. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  32. Zeevat, Henk
    2012 Objection marking and additivity. Lingua, 122(15):1886–1898. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.08.013 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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