Argumentation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 251–271

“Eat your Hamburger!”—“No, I don’t Want to!” Argumentation and Argumentative Development in the Context of Dinner Conversation in Twenty Swedish Families

Article
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyse family dinners as context of argumentation and argumentative development by using a context-sensitive model of basic argumentative structures in every day conversations. The data consisted of 40 argumentative sequences in dinner conversations in twenty Swedish families with children aged 7 to 17 years. The families were divided in two groups depending on the children's ages (10–11 years with younger siblings and 10–12 years with older siblings). The model revealed characteristic structures of argumentation appearing as co-text and suggested differences between family groups depending on contextual factors such as age of the children. The groups of older children produced longer argumentative sequences, more exchanges per sequence and higher rate of turns. The older children also engaged in non-instrumental deliberations and disputations significantly more often and they performed more elaborated expansions (through a higher quantity of backing arguments). The groups of younger children on the other hand were more often involved in negotiations on topics relevant in the immediate context. Less expected was, however, the lack of more complex and varied arguments, even in the groups of older children.

Keywords

Argumentation Natural conversation Family discourse Language acquisition 

References

  1. Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. In Austin, eds. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, J.P. 1992. The use of argument by preschool children: The emergent production of rules for winning arguments. In Readings in argumentation 11, eds. W.L. Benoit, D. Hample, and P.J. Benoit. Berlin: Studies of argumentation in pragmatics and discourse analysis, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Dinner talk. Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Brumark, Å. 1989. Blindness and the context of language acquisition. MINS 31. Diss. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  5. Brumark, Å. 2003. Democracy starts at the dinner table. Working Papers, Södertörn University College, Huddinge.Google Scholar
  6. Brumark, Å. 2006. Non-observance of Gricean maxims in family dinner table conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1206–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruner, J.S. 1981. The social context of language acquisition. Language and Communication 1: 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corsaro, W.A., and Rizzo, T.A. 1990, Disputes in peer culture of American and Italian nursery-school children. In Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, ed. A.D. Grimshaw, 118–138. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, A., and Garvey, C. 1981. Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes 4: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Englund, T. 2000. Deliberativa samtal som värdegrund – historiska perspektiv och aktuella förutsättningar. Stockholm: Statens skolverk.Google Scholar
  11. Felton, M., and Kuhn, D. 2001. The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32 (2&3): 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garvey, C. 1979. Contingent queries and their relations in discourse. In Developmental pragmatics, eds. E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  13. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, M.H. 1983. Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversation. Journal of Pragmatics VII (6).Google Scholar
  15. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. 1992. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. In Readings in argumentation 11, eds. W.L. Benoit, D. Hample, and P.J. Benoit. Berlin: Studies of argumentation in pragmatics and discourse analysis, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Linell, P. 1998. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  18. Linell, P., and Gustavsson, L. 1987. Initiativ och respons: Om dialogens dynamic, dominans och coherens, SIC 15. Linköping: Department of Communication Studies.Google Scholar
  19. Mac Whinney. 1991. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Maynard, D.W. 1985. How children start arguments. Language in Society 14: 1–29.Google Scholar
  21. Öberg, B.-M. 1995. Negotiation processes as talk and interaction. Interaction analyses of informal negotiations, Diss, Linköping University, Linköping.Google Scholar
  22. Pontecorvo, C., Fasulo, A. 1997. Learning to argue in family dinner conversation: The reconstruction of past events. In Discourse tools and reasoning, eds. L. Resnick, R. Saljo, and C. Pontecorvo. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schegloff, E.A. 1990. On the organisation of sequences as a source of “coherence” in talk-in-interaction. In Conversational organization and its development, ed. B. Dorval. Norwood, NJ: Albex.Google Scholar
  25. Schiffrin, D. 1985. Everyday argument. The organization of diversity in talk. In Handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Snow, C. 1978. The conversational context of language acquisition. In Recent advances in the psychology of languages, eds. R. Campbell and P. Smith. Plenum Press: New York.Google Scholar
  27. Snow, C.E., and Goldfield, B.A. 1983. Turn the page please: Situation specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10: 551–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trapp, R., 1992. Everyday argumentation from an interpretative perspective. In Readings in argumentation 11, eds. W.L. Benoit, D. Hample, and P.J. Benoit. Berlin: Studies of argumentation in pragmatics and discourse analysis, Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F.H. 2001. The state of the art in the argumentation theory. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. 2002. Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  32. van Rees, A. Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Vuchinich, S. 1990. The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, ed. A.D. Grimshaw. New York: Cambridge University Press, 118–138.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotskij, L.S. 1962. Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Wagner, J. 1995. What makes discourse a negotiation? In The discourse of business negotiation, eds. K. Ehlich and J. Wagner. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.Google Scholar
  36. Wallgren Hemlin, B. 2001. Overall på, Retorikmagasinet.Google Scholar
  37. Walton, D. 2000. Scare tactics: Arguments that appeal to fear and threats. Argumentation 18(2): 261–269.Google Scholar
  38. Weger, H. 2002. Violating pragma-dialectical rules in arguments between intimates. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  39. Wiksten Folkeryd, J. 1998. The acquisition of genres: Some findings from an investigation in Swedish families. RUUL 33: 89–122.Google Scholar
  40. Wirdenäs, K. 2002. Ungdomars argumentation. Om argumentationstekniker i gruppsamta, Nordistica Gothenburgensia. Acta Universitatis Gothenburensis. Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish, Rhetorics and JournalismSödertörn University CollegeHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations