PL EN


Journal
2014 | 1 | 1 | 15-26
Article title

The nature and development of argumentative skills in children: Current research

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
Journal
Year
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
15-26
Physical description
Dates
published
2014-11
Contributors
author
  • Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego, Instytut Psychologii
References
  • Arystoteles. Retoryka – Poetyka. Warszawa 1988: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  • Barbieri, M. S., Colavita, F., Scheuer, N. (1990). The beginning of the explaining capacity. In: G. Conti-Ramsden, C. E. Snow (Eds.), Children’s language. Volume 7 (pp. 245-271). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Douglass, R. B. (1974). An Aristotelian orientation to rhetorical communication. “Philosophy & Rhetoric”, 7 (2), 80-88.
  • Dunn, J., Munn, P. (1987). Development of justifi cation in disputes with mother and sibling. “Developmental Psychology”, 23, 791-798.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In: J.Renkema (Ed.), Discourse, of Course. An overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 171-185). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative disscussion. Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1987). For reason’s sake: maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 201-215). Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1988). A pragma-dialectical perspective on norms. In: R. Maier (Ed.), Norms in argumentation (pp. 97-112). Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In: J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at issue. Vol 1: Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp – 1987 (pp. 151-170). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma--dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory.Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • van Eemeren, F. H., Jackson, S., Jacobs, S. (2011). Argumentation. In: T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 85-106). Second Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  • Eisenberg, A. R., Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving confl icts. “Discourse Processes”, 4, 149–170.
  • Goetz, P. J. (2010). The development of verbal justifi cations in the conversations of preschool children and adults. “First Language”, 30, 403-420.
  • Goetz, P. J., Shatz, M. (1999). When and how peers give reasons: justifi cations in the talk of middle--school children. “Journal of Child Language”, 26, 721-748.
  • Goldstein, M., Crowell, A., Kuhn, D. (2009). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? “Informal Logic”, 29, 379-395.
  • Jackson, S. (1987). Rational and pragmatic aspect of argumentation. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation (pp. 217- 228). Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • Jackson, S. (1989). What can argumentative practices tell us about argumentation norms?. In: R. Maier (Ed.), Norms in argumentation (pp. 113-122). Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • Jackson, S., Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. “The Quarterly Journal Of Speech”, 66, 251-265.
  • Jacobs, S. (1986). How to make an argument from example in discourse analysis. In: D. G. Ellis,W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 149-167).Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Jacobs, S. (1987). The management of disagreement in conversation. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A.Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 229-239). Dordrecht – Holland: Foris.
  • Jacobs, S., Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation. “The Western Journal Of Speech Communication”, 45, 118-132.
  • Jacobs, S., Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In: J. R. Cox, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205-237).Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Jacobs, S., Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational infl uence attempts, “Communication Monographs”, 50, 285- 304.
  • Jacobs, S., Jackson, S. (1983a). Speech act structure in conversation. Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In: R. T. Craig, K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy (pp. 47-66). Beverly Hill: Sage.
  • Kyratzis, A., Ross, T. S., Koymen, B. (2010). Validating justifi cations in preschool girls’ and boys’ friendship group talk: implications for linguistic and socio-cognitive development. “Journal of Child Language”, 37, 115–144.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Oaksford, M., Chater, N., Hahn, U. (2008). Human reasoning and argumentation: The probabilistic approach. In: J. Adler, L. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 383-413). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. “Learning and Instruction”, 6 (4), 359-377.
  • Mercer, N. (2003). Helping children to talk and think together more effectively. “Polifonia”, 7, 1-26.
  • Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. “Cognitive Development”, 26,177-191.
  • Mercier, H., Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. “Behavioral and Brain Sciences”, 34, 57-111.
  • O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concept of argument and arguing. In: J. R. Cox, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Orsolini, M. (1990). Arguing in social symbolic play and other contexts. Paper presented at the IVth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Stirling (August, 1990).
  • Orsolini, M. (1993). Because in children’s discourse. “Applied Psycholinguistics”, 14, 89-120.
  • Rytel, J. (2005). Is disagreement necessary? Argumentation in preschoolers’ narrative discourse.In: B. Bokus (Ed.), Studies in the psychology of child language (pp. 313 – 327). Warsaw: Matrix.
  • Rytel, J. (2009). Arguing for persuading and arguing for exploring. “Psychology of Language and Communication” 13 (1), 21-38.
  • Rytel, J. (2012). Reaching an agreement: Argumentation in preschoolers’ narrative discourse. Warsaw: Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University Press.
  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2014). Speech act theory and study of argumentation. “Studies in Logic,Grammar and Rhetoric”, 36 (49), 41-58.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_17380_rr_v1i1_8
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.