Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 259–288

Chapter 11
The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization

The role of argumentation in family interactions

Argumentation is often considered as a way to transmit explicit information. However, in daily context-based activities, argumentation practices are embedded in discussions where many norms, beliefs, and values are taken for granted. Our objective is to evaluate the consequences of this daily argumentative processes in terms of socialization. More specifically, we focus on family mealtime conversations and analyze the structure of argumentation thanks to an ideographic methodology based on two models: the pragma-dialectical ideal model of critical discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004) and the Argumentum Model of Topics (Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2010).
The results, based on a corpus of 30 video-recorded separate meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, indicate that implicits in argumentation are particularly effective in transmitting what is taken for granted in any given cultural community. This effectiveness derives from the fact that presuppositions, i.e. background information not explicitly indicated as relevant, appear as unquestionable. Children, who are largely dependent on adults for their well-being as well as for their knowledge acquisition, are not in a position to call into question these presuppositions. Moreover, in the absence of the background necessary to understand an argument, children have to figure out (initially vaguely) a certain context that enables them to make sense of the ongoing dialogue. This background will progressively be enriched thanks to other interactions. Therefore the chances that many aspects of what is taken for granted in any given family will be maintained in the next generation are particularly high.
The results of this study can contribute to the wider theme of argumentative practices and debates in societal and family issues. Family interactions constitute a favorable discursive arena involving children and adults through different intersubjective positions that are shaped by socio-cultural and interpersonal factors within the contingent context of a discussion. Assuming the perspective of argumentation as cultural activity contributes not only to giving conditions for defining development, but also to framing the context in which the development is supported.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Taken for granted information in ordinary verbal interactions
  • 3.Argumentation and implicit in family mealtime conversations
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Data corpus
    • 4.2Participants’ recruitment and transcription procedures
    • 4.3Definition of argumentative situation and identification of the conversational sequences
  • 5.Analytical approach
  • 6.Results
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.12bov
References (88)
References
Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arcidiacono, F. (2013). Intersubjectivité et agency dans la conversation quotidienne: pratiques de socialisation en contexte. In C. Moro, N. Muller Mirza & P. Roman (Eds.), L’intersubjectivité en questions. Agrégat ou nouveau concept fédérateur pour la psychologie (pp. 292–312). Lausanne: Antipodes.Google Scholar
Arcidiacono, F., & Bova, A. (2015). Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3–5 & 6–9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 40–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse and Society, 22 (2), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science: Cognitive universals and cultural particulars. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21 (4), 547–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 31/2 and 41/2-months-old children. Developmental Psychology, 23 (5), 655–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, R., & Carey, S. (2012). Core cognition and beyond: The acquisition of physical and numerical knowledge. In S. Pauen (Ed.), Early Childhood Development and Later Outcome (pp. 33–65). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.) (2000). Understanding Other Minds. Perspectives from Autism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beals, D. E. (1993). Explanations in low-income families’ mealtime conversations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (4), 489–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Sources of support for learning words in conversation: Evidence from mealtimes. Journal of Child Language, 24 (3), 673–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birch, S. A. J., Vauthier, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2008). Three- and four-year-olds spontaneously use others’ past performance to guide their learning. Cognition, 107 (3), 1018–1034. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). You gotta know how to tell a story: Telling, tales, and tellers in American and Israeli narrative events at dinner. Language, 22 (3), 361–402.Google Scholar
(1994). The dynamics of family dinner talk: Cultural contexts for children’s passages to adult discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27 (1), 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2008). Language socialization and family dinnertime discourse. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 8: Language Socialization (pp. 87–99). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1992). Les règles de l’art: genèse et structure du champ littéraire. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Bova, A. (2015a). Children’s responses in argumentative discussions relating to parental rules and prescriptions. Ampersand, 2, 109–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015c). Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4 (1), 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bova, A., & Arcidiacono, F. (2013a). Invoking the authority of feelings as a strategic maneuver in family mealtime conversations. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23 (3), 206–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Investigating children’s Why-questions. A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function. Discourse Studies, 15 (6), 713–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Types of arguments in parents-children discussions: An argumentative analysis. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata/Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, 14 (1), 43–66.Google Scholar
(2014b). “You must eat the salad because it is nutritious”. Argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes. Appetite, 73, 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Beyond conflicts. Origin and types of issues leading to argumentative discussions during family mealtimes. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3 (2), 263–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burger, M., & Martel, G. (2005). Argumentation et communication dans les médias. Québec: Nota Bene.Google Scholar
Clément, F., Bernard, S., & Kaufmann, L. (2011). Social cognition is not reducible to theory of mind. When children use deontic rules to predict others’ behaviors. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29 (4), 910–928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clément, F., & Kaufmann, L. (2005). Le monde selon Searle. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Clément, F., Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2004). The ontogenesis of trust. Mind & Language, 19(4), 360–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahlman, C., & Feteris, E. T. (2013). Legal argumentation theory: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Geer, B. (2004). Don’t say it’s disgusting! Comments on socio-moral behavior in Swedish families. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1705–1725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1969). Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue Française, 4, 30–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiese, B. H., Foley, K. P., & Spagnola, M. (2006). Routine and ritual elements in family mealtimes: Contexts for child well-being and family identity. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 67–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11 (3), 225–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, S. (2011). Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case-study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Do children have a theory of race? Cognition, 54(2), 209–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Naïve sociology. In R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 579–580). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, L. (2002). L’opinion publique ou la sémantique de la normalité. Langage et Société, 2, 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, L., & Clément, F. (2014). Wired for society: Cognizing pathways to society and culture. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy, 33(2), 20–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keil, F. (1998). Cognitive science and the origins of thought and knowledge. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. I (pp. 341–413). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Koenig, M. A., Clément, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in testimony: Children’s use of true and false statements. Psychological Science, 15(10), 694–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6), 1261–1277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Conventions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nucci, P. L. (2001). Education in the Moral Domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (Eds.). (2013). Fast-forward Family: Home, Work, and Relationships in Middle-Class America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Pontecorvo, C., & Fasulo, A. (1996). Socializing taste. Ethnos, 61(1–2), 7–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Shohet, M. (2006). The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. In R. Larson, A. Wiley & K. Branscomb (Eds.), Family Mealtime as a Context of Development and Socialization. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development Series. Vol. 11 (pp. 35–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C. (1989). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem solving through co-narration. Cultural Dynamics, 2, 238–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, R. (2012). The diversifying of contextual constraints and argumentative strategies in friendly and hostile takeover bids. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring Argumentative Contexts (pp. 343–375). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, B. A., Perlmann, R. Y., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Food for thought: Dinner table as a context for observing parent-child discourse. In L. Menn & N. B. Ratner (Eds.), Methods for Studying Language Production (pp. 205–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perregaard, B. (2010). ‘Luckily it was only for 10 minutes’: Ideology, discursive positions, and language socialization in family interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(3), 370–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plato (1967). Preface To Plato (by E. A. Havelock). New York, NY: Grosset & Dunlap.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Social interaction in the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 293–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C., & Arcidiacono, F. (2007). Famiglie all’italiana. Parlare a tavola. Milan: Cortina.Google Scholar
(2010). Development of reasoning through arguing in young children. Культурно-Историческая Психология / Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 19–30.Google Scholar
(2016). The dialogic construction of justifications and arguments in a seven-year-old child within a “democratic” family. Language and Dialogue, 6(2), 306–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C., & Fasulo, A. (1997). Learning to argue in family shared discourse: The reconstruction of past events. In L. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition (pp. 406–442). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C., Fasulo, A., & Sterponi, L. (2001). Mutual apprentices: Making of parenthood and childhood in family dinner conversations. Human Development, 44(6), 340–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, C., & Sterponi, L. (2002). Learning to argue and reason through discourse in educational settings. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education (pp. 127–140). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A., Wdowiak, S. D., & Ottaway, J. M. (2003). Do word learners ignore ignorant speakers? Journal of Child Language, 30(4), 905–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure (de), L. (2013). Background relevance. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 178–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. (1953). Common-sense and the scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1954). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. Journal of Philosophy, 51(9), 257–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. (1994). Initial knowledge: Six suggestions. Cognition, 50(1), 431–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations. Man, 20(1), 73–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 24(4), 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1985). Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 79–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Accountability in family discourse: Socialization into norms and standards and negotiation of responsibility in Italian dinner conversations. Childhood, 16(4), 441–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takata, S. R., & Curran, J. (1999). Theory, Policy and Practice of a Career. [URL]
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge. Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, L. H., & West, R. L. (1998). Perspectives on Family Communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (2007). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (1990). The Child’s Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On Certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering (pp. 365–376). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Convertini, Josephine
2021. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Investigate Preschool children’s Implicit Inferential Reasoning in Scientific Activities. Research in Science Education 51:1 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio & Francesco Arcidiacono
2020. Analyser les échanges discursifs entre parents et enfants par la reconstruction argumentative. Revue internationale de l'éducation familiale n° 46:2 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2019. Introduction. In The Functions of Parent-Child Argumentation, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2019. Parental strategies in argumentative dialogues with their children at mealtimes. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.