Abstract
A series of experiments on children and adults were conducted to define the features and workings of argumentative discourse. Oral and written arguments were analyzed for the complexity of the argument support structure and the presence of typological argumentation markers (certainty modals, value judgments, etc.). Subjects were asked to assess the argumentativity of texts that did or did not contain typical argumentation markers.
At about age ten, children can produce and recognize a ‘minimal argumentative structure,’ in which the speaker takes a stance and supports it with text that derives its argumentativity from the presence of this stance). However, full mastery of the negotiation process, that involves acknowledgment of the opponent's stance (generally through the use of counterarguments) is not present before the ages of 15 to 16. The minimal argumentative structure continues to develop with age and gain complexity. Certain situations are more conductive to the production of elaborate argumentative discourse, such as a genuinely controversial topic with an unfamiliar adult addressee whose stance is not known and whose reaction is thus unpredictable. Here speakers produce complex arguments while still leaving room for negotiation.
Overall, certain argumentation markers can be identified in all argumentative text. these markers can be used to characterize stages of development of argumentative discourse. A number of issues remain unexplored, including: What other (implicit...) devices do speakers use to convince their audience? Why is the capacity to put argumentation in writing acquired at such a late stage of development?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. M.: 1992, Les Textes: Types et Prototypes, Nathan, Paris.
Bereiter, C. and M. Scardamalia: 1987, The Psychology of Written Communication, Hillsdale, New Jersey, L.E.A.
Benoist, J. and M. Fayol: 1989, ‘Le Développement de la Catégorisation des Types de Textes’, Pratiques 62, 71–85.
Botvin, G. J. and B. Sutton-Smith: 1977, ‘The Development of Structural Complexity in Children's Fantasy Narratives’, Developmental Psychology 13(4), 377–388.
Brassart, D. G.: 1988, ‘La Gestion des Contre-Arguments dans le Texte Argumentatif Écrit chez les Élèves de 8 à 12 Ans et les Adultes Compétents’, European Journal of Psychology of Education IV(1), 51–69.
Brassart, D. G.: 1990, ‘Le Développement des Capacités Discursives chez l'Enfant de 8 à 12 Ans. Le Discours Argumentatif’ (étude didactique), Revue Française de Pédagogie 90, 31–41.
Bronckart, J. P. and coll.: 1985, Le Fonctionnement des Discours: Un Modèle Psychologique et une Méthode d'Analyse, Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchâtel.
Brossard, M., D. Gelpe, G. Lambelin and B. Nancy: 1990, ‘Comparaison à l'École Élémentaire entre Deux Types de Discours: Discours d'Opinion et Discours Physique’, Paper presented at the Conference ‘l'explication’. Paris V.
Coirier, P.: 1992, ‘The Textual Setting of Natural Reasoning’, Paper presented at the Vth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology. Paris, September.
Coirier, P., D. Coquin, C. Golder and J. M. Passerault: 1990, ‘Le Traitement Cognitif du Texte Argumentatif: Recherches en Production et en Compréhension’, Archives de Psychologie 58, 315–348.
Coirier, P. and C. Golder: (in press), ‘Production of Supporting Structure: Developmental Study’, European Journal of Psychology of Education.
Coirier, P. and E. Marchand: 1992, ‘Writing Argumentative Texts: Typological and Structural Approach’, Paper presented at the Conference of the Special Interest Group EARLI ‘Writing’. Freiburg. October.
Eisenberg, A. R.: 1992, ‘Conflicts Between Mothers and their Young Children’, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 38, 21–44.
Eisenberg, A. R. and C. Garvey: 1981, ‘Children's Use of Verbal Strategies in Resolving Conflicts’, Discourse Processes 4, 149–170.
Espéret, E., P. Coirier, D. Coquin and J. M. Passerault: 1987, ‘L'Implication du locuteur dans son Discours: Discours Argumentatifs Formel et Naturel’, Argumentation 1, 149–168.
Garvey, C.: 1992, Talk in the Study of Socialization and Development, Special issue of Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
Genishi, C. and M. Di Paolo: 1982, ‘Learning Through Argument in a Preschool’, in L. C. Wilkinson (ed.), Communicating in the Classroom, Academic Press, New York, 49–68.
Golder, C.: 1992a, ‘Production of Elaborated Argumentative Discourse: the Role of Cooperativeness’, European Journal of Psychology of Education VII(1), 49–57.
Golder, C.: 1992b, ‘Mise en Place de la Conduite de Dialogue Argumentatif: la Recevabilité des Arguments’, Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 102, 31–43.
Grize, J. B.: 1981, ‘Pour Aborder l'Étude des Structures du Discours Quotidien’, Langue Française 50, 7–19.
Grize, J. B.: 1990, Logique et Langage, Ophrys, Paris.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.: 1981, ‘Argumentation et Mauvaise Foi’, L'Argumentation, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Paris, 41–65.
Miller, M.: 1986, ‘Argumentation and Cognition’, in M. Hickmann (ed.), Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, Academic Press, New York, 225–249.
Miller, M.: 1987, Culture and Collective Argumentaion’, Argumentation 1, 127–154.
Pièraut-Le Bonniec, G. and M. Vallete: 1987, ‘Développement du Raisonnement Argumentatif chez l'Adolescent’, in G. Pièraut-Le Bonniec (ed.), Connaître et le Dire, Mardaga, Bruxelles.
Schneuwly, B.: 1988, Le Langage Écrit chez l'Enfant, Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchâtel.
Stein, N. L. and C. A. Miller: (in press), ‘A Theory of Argumentative Understanding: Relationships Among Position Preference, Judgments of Goodness, Memory and Reasoning’, Argumentation.
Stein, N. L. and T. Trabasso: 1982, ‘Children's Understanding of Stories: a Basis For Moral Judgment and Dilemna Resolution’, in C. Brainerd and M. Pressley (eds.), Verbal Processes in Children: Progress in Cognitive Development Research, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Use of Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Weiss, D. M. and J. Sachs: 1991, Persuasive Strategies Used by Preschool Children’, Discourse Processes 14, 55–72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Golder, C., Coirier, P. The production and recognition of typological argumentative text markers. Argumentation 10, 271–282 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180729
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180729