Abstract
Written argumentative discourses were produced by 7 to 14 year-old children in two debate situations: one concerning a scientific issue (“Discours Formel”: DF,) and another concerning an opinion issue (“Discours Naturel”: DN). We had made the following developmental hypothesis: a specific discourse representation would be gradually built up by children in each situation, and would enable them to produce two different discourses, particularly with regard to the implication marks used by the writer. The two debate situations had been set up to be only differentiated by the type of proposed issues. All the remaining situational characteristics had been made identical (social scenario, announced goal, addressee, etc.).
Children's verbal products were divided into utterances. Each utterance was coded with regard to whether the following implication marks were present or not: the assuming by the writer of its assertive content; the writer's linguistically expressed reference to him- or herself; the evaluative or prescriptive value of the utterance; and the certainty modalities.
The main results were: writer's assuming the assertive content specifies more and more DN, with a clear opposition between the two discourses realised by 13–14 children. While decreasing with age in both situations, the writer's self references are found to only occur in DN from 13–14. Prescriptive and evaluative types of utterance appear only in DN, at all the ages; the first ones decrease and the second ones increase from 7 to 14. At the opposite, DF proves to consist exclusively of constative utterances. At last, certainty modalities mainly occur in DN utterances. Differentiation between the two discourses has so begun by 7–8. But it becomes complete, for all the implication marks, at 13–14. The results observed at 13–14 join those shown by two reference adult groups, which performed the same discourse tasks.
Finally, results are discussed with respect to parts of conceptions developed by Grize and by Bronckart. Given the many controls brought to bear in setting up the two discourse situations, children seem really to have been led, by the one representation of the argumentative issue, to produce more and more differentiated discourses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apothéloz, D., Dalhoumi, S., Glady, M., Martinez, G., Silem, A.: 1985, ‘Stratégies discursives’, Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, n° 49, Juin.
Apothéloz, D., Miéville, D., (avec la collaboration de J.-B. Grize): 1986, ‘Cohérence et discours argumenté’, in M. Charolles (ed.), The resolution of discourse, Buske Verlag, Hambourg.
Bassano, D., Champaud, C.: 1985, ‘Etude génétique de quelques marques argumentatives: Les modificateurs de quantité’, Communication au Premier Congrès de l' International Society of Applied Psycholinguistics, Barcelone, Juin 1985.
Bassano, D., Champaud, C.: 1986, ‘Argumentative and Informative Functions of French Intensity Modifiers: Processing of “AU MOINS”, “AU PLUS” and “BIEN”’, Laboratoire de Psychologie Expérimentale, CEPCL, Paris, document ronéoté.
Bearison, D. J., Gass, S. T.: 1979, ‘Hypothetical and Practical Reasoning: Children's Persuasive Appeals in Different Social Contexts’, Child Development 50, 901–903.
Borel, M. J., Grize, J. B., Mieville, D.: 1983, Essai de logique naturelle, P. Lang, Berne.
Bromberg, M., Dorna, A., Ghiglione, R.: 1983–84, ‘Dire pour persuader: de la rhétorique à la psychologie sociale’, Bulletin de Psychologie XXXVII, n°365, 591–601.
Bronckart, J. P.: 1985, Le fonctionnement des discours. Un modèle psychologique et une méthode d'analyse, Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchâtel.
Dispaux, G.: 1984, La logique et le quotidien: une analyse dialogique des mécanismes d'argumentation, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris.
Eisenberg, A. R., Garvey, C.: 1981, ‘Children's Use of Verbal Strategies in Resolving Conflicts’, Discourse Processes 4, 149–170.
Erftmier, T., Haas Dyson, A.: 1986, ‘“Oh, ppbbt!”: Differences between the Oral and Written Persuasive Strategies of School-aged Children’, Discourse Processes 9, 91–114.
Espéret, E.: 1984, ‘Processus de production: Genèse et rôle du schéma narratif dans la conduite de récit’, in M. Moscato & G. Pieraut Le Bonniec (eds.), Le langage: construction et actualisation, PUR, Rouen, pp. 179–196.
Espéret, E., Gaonac'h, D.: 1981, ‘What Does Storytelling Mean for Children: Narrative Schema Representation and Storytelling at Different Ages’, International Symposium on Text Processing, Fribourg (Suisse).
François, F., Hudelot, C., Sabeau-Jouannet, E.: 1984, Conduites linguistiques chez le jeune enfant, PUF, Paris.
Genishi, C., Di Paolo, M.: 1982, ‘Learning through Argument in a Preschool’ in L. C. Wilkinson (ed.), Communicating in the Class-room, Academic Press, New York.
Ghiglione, R. (sous la direction de): 1985, La communication, ses faires, ses dires, ses effets. Numéro Spécial de Psychologie Française 30, n°1.
Grize, J. B. (ed.): 1984, Sémiologie du raisonnement, P. Lang Berne.
Grize, J. B. & Collectif (IRPEACS, CACES, CNRS): 1985, ‘Problèmes et méthodes d'une analyse de texte articulant organisation cognitive, argumentation et représentations sociales. (Recherche sur “Nouvelles technologies et représentations de salariés français et suisses”)’, Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, n°49.
Meyer, B. J. F.: 1975, The organization of prose and its effects on memory, vol. 1, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Miéville, D.: 1984–85, ‘Connaissance et schématisation’, in J. Wittwer (ed.), La psycholinguistique textuelle, Bulletin de Psychologie XXXVIII, pp. 625–630.
Schneuwly, B.: 1984, Le texte discursif écrit à l'école, Genève, Thèse n°128.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Nous remercions les directions, enseignants et élèves du Groupe Scolaire Andersen et du CES France Bloch Sérazin, dont la collaboration a permis la réalisation de cette recherche. Le travail rapporté ici doit de plus beaucoup à M. F. Ballaire qui en a assuré la gestion aux différents niveaux de sa réalisation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Espéret, E., Coirier, P., Coquin, D. et al. L'implication du locuteur dans son discours: Discours argumentatifs formel et naturel. Argumentation 1, 155–174 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182258
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182258