This article investigates children's evaluation/selection of ideas in writing-related tasks. The critical dimension being considered was to what extent the communicative goal that defines argumentation establishes basic criteria with which children decide whether to include counterargument in a text. Data analysis focused on participants' decisions and, most important, the rationales they present for their decisions. Two constraints seem to drive evaluation/selection processes. First, the content constraint, whereby a writer focuses on agreement with the idea itself; second, the rhetorical constraint, defined as a writer's perception of an idea's value in increasing the acceptability of his or her point of view. Counterargumentation must be perceived as a valuable rhetorical strategy if specific counterarguments are to be incorporated into a text; otherwise, counterargumentation remains part of the process of selection/evaluation without becoming explicit in the product of such a process—the text.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alencar, R. M., & Leitão, S. (1998). Produção de idéias e textualização na escrita do texto argumentativo [Content formulation and textualization in argumentative writing]. Paper presented at the XXVIII Reunião Anual de Psicologia, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
2.
Banks-Leite, L. (1996). L'árgumentation chez l'enfant d'âge préscolaire. Paper presented at the Second Conference for Sociocultural Research, Geneva, Switzerland.
3.
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279-314.
4.
Bronckart, J.-P. (1999). Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos. Por um interacionismo sócio-discursivo [Language activity, texts and discourse. Towards a sociodiscursive interactionism]. São Paulo, Brazil: EDUC.
5.
Coirier, P. (1996). Composing argumentative texts: Cognitive and/or textual complexity. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van der Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Current trends in research on writing: Theories, models, and methodology (pp. 317-338). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
6.
Coirier, P., Andriessen, J., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.), and J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of Argumentative text processing (pp. 1-28). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
7.
Di Bernardi, B. de, & Antolini, E. (1996). Structural differences in the production of written arguments. Argumentation, 10, 175-196.
8.
Feilke, H. (1996). From syntactical to textual strategies of argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 197-212.
9.
Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You're going to want to find out which and prove it”: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 527-548.
10.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin, Germany: Foris.
11.
Golder, C. (1992). Production of elaborated argumentative discourse: The role of coop-erativeness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 51-59.
12.
Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental Trends. Discourse Processes, 18, 187-210.
13.
Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1996). The production and recognition of typological markers. Argumentation, 10, 271-282.
14.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Leitão, S. (2000a). O manejo de contra-argumentos na escrita argumentativa infantil [The management of counterarguments in children's argumentative writing]. Temas em Psicologia, 1, 79-92.
16.
Leitão, S. (2000b). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.
17.
Leitão, S., & Almeida, E. G. da S. (2000). A produção de contra-argumentos na escrita infantil [Counterargument in children's writing]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 13, 351-361.
18.
Mehan, H. (1990). Oracular reasoning in psychiatric exam: The resolution of conflict in language. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict in sociolinguistic investigations (pp. 160-177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Perkins, D. N. (1989). Reasoning at it could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Top-ping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across culture: The third inter-national conference on thinking (pp. 175-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Pinheiro, R., & Leitão, S. (2000). Consciência da estrutura textual e produção de texto argumentativo. Paper presented at the III Congresso Brasileiro de Psicologia do Desenvolvimento, Niterói, Brazil.
22.
Pouit, D., & Golder, C. (1998). How to find more arguments for writing an argumentative text. Paper presented at the 1998 European Writing Conference, Poitiers, France.
23.
Rego, L. L. B. (1996). Um estudo exploratório dos critérios utilizados pelas crianças para definir histórias [Exploratory study of the criteria children apply to define stories]. In M. G. B. B. Dias & A. G. Spinillo (Eds.), Tópicos em Psicologia Cognitiva (pp. 120-140). Recife, Brazil: Editora Universitária da UFPE.
24.
Santos, C. M. M., & Santos, S. L. (1999). Good argument, content and contextual dimensions. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) and J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 75-95). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
25.
Santos, S. L. (1997). O desenvolvimento da escrita argumentativa [The development of argumentative writing]. Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicologia, 3, 23-42.
26.
Santos, S. L. (1999). O desenvolvimento da argumentação na escrita (Rep. No. 520723/95-3). Brasília, Brazil: CNPq—Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e Científico.
27.
Simon, H. A (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
28.
Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. S. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) and J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97-116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
29.
Stein, N. L., Bernas, R. S., & Calicchia, D. J. (1996). Conflict talk: Understanding and resolving arguments. In T. Givon (Ed.), Typological studies in language: Conversational analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1991). I win—you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & Judith W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 265-290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993a). A theory of argument understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgements of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7, 183-204.
32.
Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993b). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 285-335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
Toulmin, S. E. (1990). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in 1958)
34.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
36.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
37.
Voss, J. F., Perkins, D. N., & Segal, J. W. (1991). Preface. In F. Voss, D. N. Perkins & Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
