Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 69–94

The significance of the adversative connectives aber, mais, ma (‘but’) as indicators in young children’s argumentation

| Università della Svizzera italiana
| Università della Svizzera italiana
| Università della Svizzera italiana
| Università della Svizzera italiana
| University of Neuchâtel
| University of Neuchâtel
Adversative connectives have been analyzed as articulating explicit and implicit facets of argumentative moves and have been thus recognized as potential argumentative indicators. Here we examine adversative connectives Ger. aber, Fr. mais, It. ma (‘but’) in young children’s speech in the context of the ArgImp project, a research endeavor seeking to understand in which situations children aged between two and six years engage in argumentation and how their contributions are structured. Two multilingual corpora have been collected for the project: (1) everyday family conversations, (2) semi-structured play activities and problem solving in a kindergarten setting. Through the detailed analysis of a small collection of examples, we consider the indicative potential of adversative connectives for identifying argumentative episodes in interactions involving young children and for the reconstruction of the inferential configurations of children’s contributions to these argumentative discussions. The results show that fully fledged argumentative interpretations of adversatives occur as a possibility in children’s speech, and that adversative connectives can be used profitably to identify less apparent argumentative confrontations and implicit standpoints in children’s speech.
Keywords: children’s argumentation, argumentative indicators, but , adversative connectives, argumentative semantics, counterargument, rebuttal, undercutter, implicit standpoints
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An argumentative semantics for adversative connectives
    • 2.1 But and the typology of counterarguments
  • 3.Corpus data
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Banana
    • 4.2Day Care
    • 4.3I’m bored
    • 4.4Something important to do
    • 4.5T-shirt
    • 4.6Iron bridge
    • 4.7But, look!
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
References (32)
References
Akiguet, Sylvie and Annie Piolat. 1996. “Insertion of Connectives by 9- to 11-Year-Old Children in an Argumentative Text”. Argumentation 10(2): 253–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot. 1977. “Deux mais en français?”. Lingua 43(1): 23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas and Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Convertini, Joséphine. 2019. Contributo allo studio dei tipi di argomento in situazioni di problem solving tecnico da parte di bambini in età prescolare. PhD dissertation. University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald, Sylvie Bruxelles, Eric Fouquier, Jean Gouazé, Géraldo dos Reis Nunez, and Anna Rémis. 1980. “Mais occupe-toi d’Amélie”. In Les mots du discours, ed. by Oswald Ducrot et al., 93–130. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure. Berlin/New York: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Argument Structure: Representation and Theory. Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara. 2013. “ Multivoiced decisions. A study of migrants’ inner dialogue and its connection to social argumentation”. Pragmatics and Cognition 21 (1): 55–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Sara, Rebecca Schär, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont and Antonio Iannaccone (2017). Argumentation as a dialogic interaction in everyday talk: Adults and children playing by the rules in board game play. International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA) conference, Bologna, October 2017.Google Scholar
Greco Sara, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Antonio Iannaccone, Andrea Rocci, Joséphine Convertini and Rebecca Schär. 2018. “The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences”. Informal Logic 38(4): 438–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Sara. 2017. “Using Argumentative Tools to Understand Inner Dialogue”. Argumentation 31(2):331–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 1989. Modélisation du dialogue: représentation de l’inférence argumentative. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2005. « L’analyse de corpus en linguistique interactionnelle: de l’étude de cas singuliers à l’étude de collections”. In Sémantique et corpus, ed. by Anne Condamines, 76–108. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning, Kjersti Fløttum and Coco Norén. 2004. ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Peldszus, Andreas and Manfred Stede. 2013. “From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey”. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI) 7(1):1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Carole. 1986. “Semantic and Pragmatic Uses of ‘but’”. Journal of Child Language 13(3):583–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1980. Les formes élémentaires de la dialectique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Pollock, John L. 1987. “Defeasible Reasoning”. Cognitive Science 11(4):481–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo and Sara Greco. 2019. Inference in Argumentation: A topics-based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocci, Andrea and Carlo Raimondo. 2017. “Dialogical Argumentation in Financial Conference Calls: the Request of Confirmation of Inference (ROCOI)”. In Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. II), ed. by Steve Oswald and Didier Maillat, 699–715. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea. In press. The Language of Argumentation. ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen and Maarten van Leeuwen. Springer.
Schär, Rebbeca. 2018. An argumentative analysis of the emergence of issues in adult-children discussions. PhD dissertation. Lugano: USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
Schär, Rebecca and Sara Greco. 2018. “The emergence of argumentative issues in everyday discussions between adults and children”. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric 2(1):29–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca. 1995. “‘But’as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions”. Leuvense Bijdragen 841:1–14.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert and Ted Sanders. 2008. “The Acquisition Order of Coherence Relations: On Cognitive Complexity in Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12):2003–2026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2005. “Contrast and Information Structure: A Focus-Based Analysis of but .” Linguistics 43(1):1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rees, Agnes. 1992. The Use of Language in Conversation. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Winterstein, Grégoire. 2012. “What but-sentences argue for: An argumentative analysis of but”. Lingua, 122(15): 1864–1885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk. 2012. Objection marking and additivity. Lingua, 122(15):1886–1898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Luciani, Margherita & Josephine Convertini
2024. Patients and psychotherapists using concessive counter‐argumentation: Co‐constructing new framings. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 24:1 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer & Steve Oswald
2024. Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Convertini, Josephine & Margherita Luciani
2023. Social construction of the image of the psychologist and of the patient: the role of implicit premises. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Reuter, Friederike
2023. Explorative mathematical argumentation: a theoretical framework for identifying and analysing argumentation processes in early mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics 112:3 ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo
Bubikova-Moan, Jarmila & Margareth Sandvik
2022. Argumentation in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review. Human Development 66:6 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
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
Convertini, Josephine & Francesco Arcidiacono
2021. Embodied Argumentation in Young Children in Kindergarten. Education Sciences 11:9 ► pp. 514 ff. DOI logo
Rocci, Andrea
2021. Diagramming Counterarguments: At the Interface Between Discourse Structure and Argumentation Structure. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald
2021. The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives. Argumentation 35:3 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence ofIssuesin Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 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.