I want to talk but it is not possible: Dinnertime argumentation in Swiss and Italian families

This paper investigates to what extent Swiss and Italian family members engage to resolve differences of opinion during their everyday conversations at home. The goal is to point out the importance of the context in the an alytical reconstruction of argumentation carried out by parents and children at dinnertime and to highlight the similarities and diferences among different strategies. By means of case studies, we intend to an alyze qualitatively how argumentation shapes the communicative practices of Swiss and Italian family members and how it can foster a critical attitude in their processes of decision-making. We integrate two theoretical and methodological approaches. The first one is the model of the critical discussion, derived from the pragma-dialectical perspective. It represents an ideal argumentative discussion against which real-life interaction can be analytically reconstructed and evaluated. The second one is the conversational an d discursive approach that aims at identifying the sequential patterns of discourse produced by participants. Within conversations at dinnertime, we rely on insights from those approaches in order to interpret context-bound communicative and argumentative moves among family members. The results of this study show that, within the particular setting of dinnertime conversations, the pragma-dialectical and conversational analyses are powerful methods to understand how argumentation fosters a critical atitude in the process of building the family consent. Families show different ways through which children are socialized to argue and to discuss with adults, developing specific strategies and conversational devices within this kind of activity. The findings of this study open a large space for investigation about the management of family debates in diferent situations, taking into account a double perspective on argumentation

“You must eat the salad because it is nutritious”: argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes

At mealtimes, the evaluation of the appropriate (or not appropriate) behavior concerning the food is often assumed as a topic of discourse. The aim of this study is to single out the argumentative strategies used by parents with their children and by children with their parents in order to convince the other party to eat or not to eat a certain food. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families, we selected a corpus of 77 argumentative discussions between parents and children arisen around a food-related issue. Data are presented through discursive excerpts of argumentative discussions that were found within the data corpus and analyzed through the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results of this study show that the feeding practices in families with young children during mealtimes are argumentatively co- constructed by participants. In most cases parents put forward arguments based on the quality (e.g., very good, nutritious, salty, or not good) and quantity (e.g., too little, quite enough, or too much) of food to convince their children to eat. Similarly, children put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to convince their parents to change their standpoint, although their view on the issue is the opposite of that of their parents

Argumentation among Family Members in Italy and Switzerland: A Cross-Cultural Perspective

The main goal of this study is to analyze to what extent family members engage to resolve differences of opinion during everyday interactions at home. Our aim is to point out the importance of the context in the analytical reconstruction of argumentation carried out by parents and children at dinnertime. Trough the examination of everyday interactions, we analyze qualitatively how argumentation shapes the communicative practices of Italian and Swiss family members and how it can foster a critical attitude in their processes of decision-making. We integrate two theoretical and methodological approaches: the first one is the model of the critical discussion, derived from the pragma-dialectical perspective. It represents an ideal argumentative discussion against which real-life interaction can be analytically reconstructed and evaluated. The second one is the conversational and discursive approach that aims at identifying the sequential patterns of discourse produced by participants. The present study shows that within the setting of dinnertime conversations pragma-dialectical and conversational analyses are powerful tools to understand how argumentation fosters a critical attitude in the process of decision-making and of the building of consent. The results open a space of investigation about the management of family debates in different contexts, taking into account a double perspective on argumentation

Assessment of membrane plants for biogas upgrading to biomethane at zero methane emission

In the future energy infrastructure there is a considerable potential for biogas and, in particular, for biomethane as a natural gas substitute. Among the alternatives of upgrading biogas to biomethane, this work focuses on membrane permeation. Taking cellulose acetate as membrane material and spiral-wound as membrane configuration, five layouts are assessed. All layouts have the same biogas plant rated at 500 m3/h (STP), yet they may adopt: (i) one- or two-stage permeation, (ii) permeate or residue recycle, and (iii) a water heater or a prime mover (internal combustion engine or a micro gas turbine) to exploit residues as fuel gas. Since residues are consumed, all layouts have zero emission of methane into the atmosphere. The membrane material is modeled considering the phenomenon of plasticization; the membrane modules are described by a crossflow permeation patterns without pressure drops. The results indicates that specific membrane areas range from 1.1 to 2.4 m2h/m3 (STP), specific energy from 0.33 to 0.47 kWh/m3 (STP), and exergy efficiencies from 57.6% to 88.9%. The splitting of permeation over two stages and the adoption of water heater instead of prime movers is a convenient option. The preferred layout employs a single compressor, a two-stage membrane permeation at 26 bar, a water heater fueled by the first-stage permeate, and a second-stage permeate recycle. Assuming a biomethane incentive of 80 €/MWhLHV and a project life of 15 years, the total investment of this plant is 2.9 M€, the payback time 5 years and the net present value 3.5 M€

Beyond conflicts: Origin and types of issues leading to argumentative discussions during family mealtimes

This paper sets out to investigate the issues leading parents to engage in argumentative discussions with their children during mealtimes. Within a data corpus of 30 video-recorded meals of 10 middle to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level, 107 argumentative discussions between parents and children aged from 3 to 9 years old were selected. The approach for the analysis is based on the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. The results show that family argumentative discussions unfold around issues that are generated both by parental prescriptions and by children's requests. The parental prescriptions largely concern context-bound activities such as having to eat a certain food or the teaching of correct table manners. The issues triggered by children's requests refer to a wide range of activities, mainly related to the activity of mealtimes but also related to the children's behavior outside the family context. These results indicate that argumentative interactions between parents and children are not mere conflictual episodes that must be avoided, but they essentially have a broader educational function

The interplay between parental argumentative strategies, children's reactions and topics of disagreement during family conversations

This study aims to explore the interplay between parents' arguments, children's reactions and topics of disagreement during mealtime conversations. Within a data corpus constituted by 30 video-recorded meals of 10 Swiss and Italian families, a corpus of 132 argumentative discussions was selected for a qualitative analysis through the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Findings indicate that both parents and children assume argument schemes related to the object of the disagreement: when the contested standpoints refer to food, arguments are based on a symptomatic relation; when they refer to the behavior of children, parents base their argumentation on a causal and analogy relation, while the children's reaction is typically an expression of further doubt or a mere opposition without providing any argument. The results of this study bring further light on the actual knowledge of argumentative interactions and the interplay between topics of disagreement and the argumentative strategies adopted by family members

The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions

This paper aims to investigate the types of source on which students base the arguments from expert opinion when used to convince their teacher and classmates to accept their standpoint during disciplinary discussions. Using the model of a critical discussion integrated with the Argumentum Model of Topics as analytical approach, a corpus of 66 arguments from expert opinion were analyzed. The results show that students in most cases refer to scholars and their scientific notions and theories as source of expertise (other-oriented argument). Less frequently, students refer to themselves and their previous personal experience as source of expertise (self-oriented argument)

Investigating children's Why-questions: A study comparing argumentative and explanatory function

Questions represent a crucial tool of interaction between parents and children from a very early age. This study aims to investigate which function - argumentative or explanatory - most characterizes Why-questions asked by children to their parents in a natural setting such as mealtimes at home. Why-questions asked by 13 children - eight girls and five boys aged between three and seven years - coming from 10 middle- to upper-middle-class Swiss and Italian families with a high socio-cultural level were analyzed. In the corpus, the explanatory function largely characterizes children's Why-questions. Questions we observed play fundamentally an educational role, since they favor the acquisition of new information and the transmission from parents to children of parental behavioral models (social behavior). The argumentative Why-questions, less frequently asked by children in our sample, are also important from an educational point of view. By these questions children challenge their parents to make clear the reasons behind their opinions, suggestions, rules and prescriptions, which are often largely implicit. Altogether, the results of this study indicate that both the explanatory and argumentative types of children's Why-questions have a knowledge-seeking function, that is, children asking such questions are seeking knowledge of something. \ua9 The Author(s) 2013

“But the vanilla is healthy!” Children's expression of arguments to justify their non-compliances in family conversation

This study aims to explore how children express their need to account for actions by using valid arguments in order to prevent the non-compliance of a rule within family conversation. Previous works have shown the relevance of parental requests towards children and the need to account for a violation or for incorrect verbal expressions. The present case study is based on the argumentative analysis of a corpus of data concerning a family, within a large set of recordings of 76 dinners, held by 23 Italian middle-class families selected on the grounds of similar criteria. We specifically focused on the observation of a family in which children are accounting for their actions to verbally justify the non-compliance of a rule indicated by a parent. Findings indicate that children express a variety of arguments to justify their non-compliances with a parental directive: in the case of young children (3–6 years old), their justifications can be considered as the beginning of argumentative reasoning skills. The results of this study bring further light on the actual knowledge of argumentative interactions and the interplay between the expression of justifications and the argumentative skills of children to account for their non-compliances within the family arena