A Qualitative Methodology for Studying Parent–Child Argumentation

This chapter provides a detailed exposé of the research methodology on which the investigation of parent–child argumentation during mealtime is based. In the first part, the conceptual tools adopted for the analysis of argumentative discussions between parents and children, i.e., the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion and the Argumentum Model of Topics, are presented. Subsequently, the process of data gathering and the procedures for the transcription of oral data are discussed. Finally, in the last part of the chapter, ethical issues and practical problems in collecting parent–child mealtime conversations present throughout the study are considered

Promoting learning and development of students through argumentative interactions: A study of the teacher's questions in the learning contexts of higher education

This study sets out to investigate how learning and development of students through social interaction in the classroom can be pursued by the teacher in the learning contexts of higher education. The aim of this study is to compare the types of teachers' questions to their students used at undergraduate and graduate levels during argumentative disciplinary discussions in the classroom. The data corpus is constituted by 16 video-recorded lessons of two courses \u2013 one at undergraduate level and one at graduate level \u2013 in Developmental Psychology. The two courses were selected according to the following criteria: i) similar number of students, ii) similar disciplinary domain, iii) both courses are taught by the same teacher in English language. The analytical approach adopted for the analysis relies on a qualitative methodology based on the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. The findings of this study indicate that at the undergraduate level the teacher asks questions that can favor a large discussion with and among students around general topics relating to Developmental Psychology. At the graduate level the teacher asks questions that refer to specific aspects of a certain theory. However, both at undergraduate and graduate level the students are expected to provide the reasons at the basis of their own opinions by advancing arguments that have to refer to scientific theories. The results of this study bring to light the crucial role played by the teacher in promoting learning and development of students, by favouring the beginning of argumentative discussions with and among them on topics relating to the discipline taught in the course

El lugar de la controversia en la argumentación

La oposición a una estricta separación entre las dimensiones dialéctica y retórica de la actividad argumentativa es una de las aportaciones más destacadas y peculiares de la denominada escuela holandesa sobre argumentación. Frans H. van Eemeren y Peter Houtlosser reaccionaron contra una separación estricta entre dialéctica y retórica en varios trabajos, pero uno de los más inspiradores es sin duda su artículo “William the Silent’s argumentative discourse” (1998) presentado en la ciudad de Ámsterdam con ocasión de la cuarta conferencia organizada por la International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Sobre este tema siguieron investigando para presentar un análisis de la perspectiva dialéctica inherente al caso de Guillermo I de Orange en un congreso de la Japan Debate Association en Tokio (van Eemeren y Houtlosser, 2000)

El lugar de la controversia en la argumentación

La oposición a una estricta separación entre las dimensiones dialéctica y retórica de la actividad argumentativa es una de las aportaciones más destacadas y peculiares de la denominada escuela holandesa sobre argumentación. Frans H. van Eemeren y Peter Houtlosser reaccionaron contra una separación estricta entre dialéctica y retórica en varios trabajos, pero uno de los más inspiradores es sin duda su artículo “William the Silent’s argumentative discourse” (1998) presentado en la ciudad de Ámsterdam con ocasión de la cuarta conferencia organizada por la International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Sobre este tema siguieron investigando para presentar un análisis de la perspectiva dialéctica inherente al caso de Guillermo I de Orange en un congreso de la Japan Debate Association en Tokio (van Eemeren y Houtlosser, 2000)

Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER‐FIL/28278/2017 PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. 7 mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.authorsversionpublishe

Considering the roles of values in practical reasoning argumentation evaluation

Building upon the role values take in Walton’s theory of practical reasoning, this paper will frame the question of how values should be evaluated into the broader question of what reasonable practical argumentation is. The thesis argued for is that if a positive evaluation of practical reasoning argumentation requires that the argument avoid a morally negative conclusion, then the role of values should be given a central, rather than supportive, position in practical argument evaluation

Argumentação verbo-visual no gênero textual anúncio publicitário: uma proposta de análise

The analysis of verbo-visual argumentation in advertising is a crucial and problematic area of research. Despite such importance, the methods used to interpret and reconstruct the structure of arguments expressed through verbal and visual media capture only isolated dimensions of this complex phenomenon. This article aims to present a methodology for the reconstruction and analysis of "dual-mode" arguments in advertisements, combining analytical tools developed by pragmatics, argumentation theory, text, and discourse linguistics. To this end, an advertisement is analyzed in five steps. The first step is the analysis of its context, textual genre, and images. The second, third, and fourth steps consist of enriching the first semantic representations through the inclusion of its polyphonic articulations and presuppositions, its explicatures, and its dialogical functions and illocutionary forces, in this order. The final step is to provide the construction of argumentation schemes. The development of this methodology may be of great value for the analysis of other verbal-visual discourse genres, including those that currently circulate in digital media.A análise da argumentação verbo-visual na publicidade é uma área de pesquisa: crucial e problemática. Apesar dessa importância, os métodos ainda utilizados para interpretar e reconstruir a estrutura dos argumentos expressos através de meios verbais e visuais capturam apenas dimensões isoladas desse fenômeno complexo. Este artigo objetiva, assim, apresentar uma metodologia para a reconstrução e análise de argumentos “de modo duplo” em anúncios publicitários, combinando os instrumentos analíticos desenvolvidos pela pragmática, teoria da argumentação, linguística dos textos e dos discursos. Um anúncio publicitário processa-se em cinco etapas. A primeira corresponde à análise do seu contexto, do gênero textual e das imagens (etapa 1). Essas primeiras representações semânticas são mais tarde enriquecidas através da inclusão das suas articulações polifónicas e pressuposições (etapa 2), das suas explicaturas (etapa 3) e das suas funções dialógicas e forças ilocutórias (etapa 4). Essas etapas pragmáticas propiciam a construção de esquemas de argumentação (etapa 5). O desenvolvimento desta metodologia pode vir a ser uma mais-valia para a análise de outros gêneros discursivos verbo-visuais, inclusive aqueles que circulam, na atualidade, nos meios digitais

Co-construction of argumentative interactions in the family and school context

This study seeks to examine how participants contribute interactionally to the dialogic process of managing their divergent opinions in the family and school context. Within a data corpus comprising 30 video-recorded meals of 10 Swiss and Italian families (sub-corpus A) and 16 video-recorded lessons of two courses – one at the undergraduate level and one at the graduate level – in Developmental Psychology (sub-corpus B), argumentative discussions were selected for qualitative analysis by adopting the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Despite the differences in roles, age, and competencies between parents and children and between teachers and students, the findings of the pragma-dialectical analysis indicate that in the family and the school context, managing the divergent opinions is a co-constructed dialogic process wherein all participants play a fundamental role. By engaging in argumentative discussions, parents and teachers accept the commitment of clarifying to children and students the reasons on which their standpoints are based. Children and students, in turn, encourage parents and teachers to advance arguments to justify their standpoints by asking questions. Argumentative discussions in the family and school context should thus be viewed as a bidirectional dialogical process that opens a shared space for all participants to think together

From argumentation theory to argument pragmatics: a call to reflect on situated language use

Argumentation theory, as a field, has moved over time from the abstractions of formal logic to a growingly direct concern for more pragmatic ways of thinking about matters that it has traditionally taken up (such as reasoning, rules of argument, fallacies, etc.). An overview of this trajectory in which the field has been traveling suggests that language pragmatics will take on an increasing importance. In anticipation of language pragmatics\u27 growing importance, this study reviews it as it relates to current interests in argumentation theory. The pragma-dialectical approach, which has made major contributions to the field of argumentation theory and already pushes toward language pragmatics (along with `conversational argument\u27 work), is explicated and critiqued. The study calls upon argumentation scholars to re-envision their work as becoming less a matter of argumentation theory, and more a matter of `argument pragmatics.\u27 The re-envisioned field of argument pragmatics is tentatively outlined in terms of its general theoretical and methodological posture, its role in describing, explaining, and improving argumentative practice(s), and its theoretical significance with regards to some concerns that are (and have long been) central to argument studies. This discussion is supported and facilitated by use of data samples taken from a specific case of appellate advocacy