Cover not available

Article published In: Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 4–20

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Adult as a source of expert opinion in child’s argumentation during family mealtime conversations

 | Università della Svizzera italiana (USI)
Published online: 8 June 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.01bov
The present study addresses the issue of how the differences in age and roles with their parents can affect the children’s choice of the argumentative strategies they adopt in their discussions. The findings show that when children refer to a third person as a source of expert opinion, the expert always proves to be an adult, and not another child. Looking at this argumentative choice typically made by children, it is reasonable to assume that for them the reference to an opinion of an adult is a stronger argument than the reference to an opinion of another child. However, the actual effectiveness of the argument from adult-expert opinion depends on the extent to which the premises (endoxa) the argument is based on are shared by parents and children.
References (35)
Arcidiacono, Francesco, and Antonio Bova. 2011a. “Argumentative Strategies for Conflict Management and Resolution in Italian and Swiss Families.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 301: 1385–1389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. “‘I want to talk but it’s not possible!’ Dinnertime argumentation in Italian and Swiss families.” Journal of US-China Education Review A 31:355–368.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Argumentation among Family Members in Italy and Switzerland: A Cross-cultural Perspective.” In Steering the Cultural Dynamics, ed. by Yoshihisa Kashima, Emiko S. Kashima, and Ruth Beatson, 167–174. Melbourne: IACCP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arcidiacono, Francesco, Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Sara Greco Morasso. 2009. “Family conversations: The relevance of context in evaluating argumentation.” Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (2): 79–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bigi, Sarah. 2012. “Contextual Constraints on Argumentation. The Case of the Medical Encounter”. In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 289–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1997. Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bova, Antonio. 2011a. “Functions of Why-questions used by children in family conversations.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 301: 776–782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Implicitness Functions in Family Argumentation.” In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, David Godden, and Gordon Mitchell, 149–161. Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bova, Antonio, and Francesco Arcidiacono. 2013a.”Invoking the Authority of Feelings as a Strategic Maneuver in Family Mealtime Conversations.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 23 (3): 206–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. “Investigating Children’s Why-questions. A Study Comparing Argumentative and Explanatory Function.” Discourse Studies 15 (6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “‘Eat Your Hamburger!’ — ‘No, I don’t want to!’ Argumentation and Argumentative Development int he Context of Dinner Conversation in Twenty Swedish Families.” Argumenation 221: 251–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, Judy, and Penny Munn. 1987. “Developmental of Justification in Disputes with Mother and Sibling.” Developmental Psychology 23 (6): 791–798. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumenation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiese, Barbara H., Kimberly P. Foley, and Mary Spagnola. 2006. “Routine and Ritual Elements in Family Mealtimes: Contexts for Child Well-being and Family Identity.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1111: 67–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Contextual Frames and their Argumentative Implications: A Case-study in Media Argumentation.” Discourse Studies 14 (2): 197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hester, Stephen, and Sally Hester. 2010. “Conversational Actions and Category Relations: An Analysis of a Children’s Argument.” Discourse Studies 12 (1): 33–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laforest, Marty. 2002. “Scenes of Family Life: Complaining in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10-11): 1595–1620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, Rudi. 2012. “The Diversifying of Contextual Constraints and Argumentative Strategies in Friendly and Hostile Takeover Bids.” In Exploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 343–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, Clotilde. 1993a. “Social Interaction in the Acquisition of Knowledge.” Educational Psychology Review 5(3): 293–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993b. La condivisione della conoscenza. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, Clotilde, and Francesco Arcidiacono. 2007. Famiglie all’italiana: parlare a tavola. Milan: Cortina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, Clotilde, and Alessandra Fasulo. 1997. “Learning to Argue in Family Shared Discourse: The Reconstruction of Past Events.” In Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, Roger Saljo, Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Barbara Burge, 406–442. New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, Clotilde, and Sabine Pirchio. 2000. “A Developmental View on Children’s Arguing: The Need of the other.” Human Development 43 (6): 361–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo. 2009. “Whether and How Classical Topics can be Revived within Contemporary Argumentation Theory.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 157–178. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco Morasso. 2010. “Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components.” Argumentation 24 (4): 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Rudi Palmieri. 2010. “Analyzing and Evaluating Complex Argumentation in an Economic-financial Context.” In Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, ed. by Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 85–99. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slomkowski, Cheryl L., and Judy Dunn. 1992. “Arguments and Relationships within the Family: Differences in Young Children’s Disputes with Mother and Sibling.” Developmental Psychology 28 (5): 919–924. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion. Arguments from Authority. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2009. “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.” In Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 365–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Kucirkova, Natalia & Jarmila Bubikova-Moan
2025. Parent–Child Mealtime Conversations Stimulated with Decorated Tableware. Early Childhood Education Journal 53:7 ► pp. 2591 ff. DOI logo
Todorovic, Natalija, Benedetto Lepori & Andrea Rocci
2024. Plural conversations about argumentation. In Persuasion in Specialized Discourse [Argumentation in Context, 22], ► pp. 24 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. Psychosocial Obstacles in Young Children Argumentative Interactions. Education Sciences 11:5 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio, Francesco Arcidiacono & Fabrice Clément
2017. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization. In Argumentation across communities of practice [Argumentation in Context, 10], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Arcidiacono, Francesco & Antonio Bova
2015. Activity-bound and activity-unbound arguments in response to parental eat-directives at mealtimes: Differences and similarities in children of 3–5 and 6–9 years old. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 6 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2015. “This is the cheese bought by Grandpa”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:2 ► pp. 133 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
Bova, Antonio
2019. A Qualitative Methodology for Studying Parent–Child Argumentation. In The Functions of Parent-Child Argumentation, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2020. Un estudio de los argumentos de autoridad utilizados por los padres con sus hijos durante las comidas. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación :19 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2021. Dialogical construction of parental feeding strategies during family mealtimes. Journal of Health Psychology 26:10 ► pp. 1684 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio
2021. Co-construction of argumentative discussions between parents and children during mealtime conversations. A pragma-dialectical analysis. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 29 ► pp. 100519 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio & Francesco Arcidiacono
2015. Beyond conflicts. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio & Francesco Arcidiacono
2016. The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions. Studies in Communication Sciences 16:2 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio & Francesco Arcidiacono
2018. The interplay between parental argumentative strategies, children's reactions and topics of disagreement during family conversations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 19 ► pp. 124 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
[no author supplied]
2021. An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult-Children Discussions [Argumentation in Context, 19], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue