Abstract
Most pupils become confident with narrative texts. However, studies show that pupils do not learn to master discursive genres in a satisfactory way. Therefore it is important to study pupils’ written argumentation and to develop knowledge about text production in an education that also highlights linguistic structures. The present article investigates written argumentations produced by 10–12 year-old pupils. The aim is to investigate perspectives in the texts, and thereby catch the entire texts—their content, function and form—and to relate text analysis to interaction in the classroom. The theoretical framework emanates from the dialogical and triadic conception of language and text where ideational, relational and textual aspects play a central role. In this article the focus is on the three perspective dimensions—relief, hierarchy and sequences—in one argumentative text written by a 10-year-old girl and the discursive practice within which her text is produced.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This article is based on my thesis Perspective in Pupils Texts: Written Argumentation in Lower Secondary School (Nestlog 2009). In that investigation three teachers and their pupils in grades 4–6 participated. The teachers attended an in-service course dealing with argumentative texts from a didactic perspective, and in conjunction with the course they planned and implemented the teaching of writing in their classes. The material consisted of 47 argumentative texts written by the pupils. I have also collected complementary material of observation documentation, the teachers’ reflective notes, a pupils’ questionnaire and qualitative interviews with the pupils and the teacher.
In the thesis I also analyse the voices and the attitudes and evaluations that are expressed, but in this article I consider only the perspective dimensions.
I am aware that these roles function at different levels in the text and sometimes overlap—a phenomenon that needs further research. .
Relational aspects in the entire study also comprise the analysis of voices, attitudes and evaluations. But the perspective dimensions are superior and must therefore be stressed (cf. Verhagen 2007).
References
Ajagán-Lester, L., P. Ledin, and H. Rahm. 2003. Intertextualiteter. In Teoretiska perspektiv på sakprosa, ed. Boel Englund, and Per Ledin, 203–238. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Andrews, R. 1989. Introduction: New relationships between narrative and argument? In Richard andrews, ed. Argument Narrative, 1–8. Milton Keynes & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Andrews, R. 1995. Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.
Ask, S. 2005. Tillgång till framgång: Lärare och studenter om stadieövergången till högre utbildning. Växjö: Institutionen för Humaniora, Växjö Universitet.
Ask, S. 2007. Vägar till ett akademiskt skriftspråk. Växjö: Växjö Universitet.
Bäcklund, I. 1988. Grounds for prominence: On hierarchies and grounding in English expository text. Studia Neophilologica 60: 37–61.
Bakhtin, M.M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barton, D. 2007. Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Berge, K.L., L.S. Evensen, F. Hertzberg, and W. Vagle (eds.). 2005. Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Blåsjö, M. 2004. Studenters skrivande i två kunskapsbyggande miljöer. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Blåsjö, M. 2007. Medierande redskap–ett sätt att se på högre utbildning och arbetsliv i samverkan? In Skrive för nåtid og framtid: Skriving og rettleiing i høgre utdanning. Bind 2, ed. Synnøve Matre, and Torlaug Løkensgard Hoel, 12–22. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag.
Blückert, A. 2004. Steget in i en akademisk språklig praktik. Rhetorica Scandinavica 32: 27–35.
Brorsson, B.N. 2007. Man liksom bara skriver: Skrivande och skrivkontexter i grundskolans år 7 och 8. Örebro: Örebro Universitet.
Evensen, L.S. 2002. Conventions from below: Negotiating interaction and culture in argumentative writing. Written Communication. A Quartely Journal of Research Theory and Applications 19(3): 382–413.
Evensen, L.S. 2004. Å skrive seg stor: Utvikling av koherens og social identitet i tidlig skriving. In Skriveteorier og skolepraksis, ed. Lars Sigfred Evensen, and Torlaug Løkensgard Hoel, 155–178. Oslo: LNU/Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Evensen, L.S. 2005. Studie 7: Perspektiv på innhold? Relieff i ungdomsskoleelevers eksamensskriving. In Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Bind II: Norskeksamen som tekst, ed. Kjell Lars Berge, Lars Sigfred Evensen, Frøydis Hertzberg, and Wenche Vagle, 191–236. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Freedman, A., and I. Pringle. 1989. Contexts for developing argument. In Narrative and argument, ed. Richard Andrews, 73–84. Milton Keynes & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Holmberg, P., and A.-M. Karlsson. 2006. Grammatik med betydelse: En introduktion till funktionell grammatik. Uppsala: Hallgren & Fallgren.
Höög, C.N. 2006. Gymnasisttexter. In Textvård: Att läsa, skriva och bedöma texter, ed. Svenska Språknämnden, 36–44. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.
Lindeberg, A-C. 1985. Functional role analysis applied to narrative and nonnarrative essays in EFL. In Trondheimsskrifter i anvendt språkvitenskap: Trondheim papers in applied linguistics 2: 26–45.
Maagerø, E. 2005. Språket som mening: Inføring i funksjonell lingvistikk for studenter og lærere. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Nestlog, E.B. 2009. Perspektiv i elevtexter: Skriftligt argumenterande i grundskolans mellanår. Växjö: Växjö Universitet.
Nilsson, N.-E. 2002. Skriv med egna ord: En studie av läroprocesser när elever i grundskolans senare år skriver “forskningsrapporter”. Malmö: Högskolan i Malmö.
Øksnes, H. 1999. Koherens i elevtekster: En analys av funksjonelle roller. Trondheim: Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvienskap, Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskaplige Universitet.
Ongstad, S. 1996. Sjangrer, posisjonering og oppgaveideologie: Et teoretisk-empirisk bidrag til et tverrfaglig, semiotisk og didaktisk sjangerbegrep. Trondheim: Norges Teknisk Naturvitenskaplige Universitet.
Rubin, E. 1921. Visuell wahrgenommene Figuren: Studien in psychologischer analyse mit 13 Abbildungen. København/Christiania/Berlin/London: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
Skolverket. 2000. Grundskolan. Kursplaner och betygskriterier. Svenska. http://www3.skolverket.se/ki03/front.aspx?sprak=SV&ar=0304&infotyp=23&skolform=11&id=3890&extraId=2087. Accessed 24 April 2008.
Smidt, J. 1999. “All the world’s a stage”—discourse roles and student positioning in the great dialog. In The dialogical perspective and Bakhtin: Conference report, ed. Olga Dysthe, Program for Læringsforskning. Universitetet i Bergen. PLF Rapport 2/99: 89–97.
Verhagen, A. 2007. Intersubjectivity—mutual management of cognitive states. In Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax, and cognition, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotskij, L.S. 2001. Tänkande och språk. Göteborg: Daidalos.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nestlog, E.B. Written Argumentation by a 10-Year-Old Pupil in Sweden. Argumentation 23, 437–449 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9163-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9163-x