Evaluative expressions used for argumentation in low and mid SES child-child interactions

SHIRO, MARTHA; MIGDALEK, MAIA; ROSEMBERG, CELIA RENATA

Lyon

Congreso; 14th International Congress for the Study of Child Language; 2017

International Association for the Study of Child Language

In this presentation, we report how children use evaluative and evidential expressions for their argumentative strategies when they participate in confrontational interactions. Previous studies have addressed the early development of argumentative abilities (Eisenberg, 1987; Stein & Albro, 2001), but they have not analyzed the uses of evaluative language in children?s earliest argumentations. The present study aims to fill this gap. Our data consists of 79 disputes between 4 dyads of 4 to 6 year-old children (2 dyads were mid SES, and 2 low SES). The two mid SES dyads participated in 43 disputes and the low SES dyads in 36. The interactions were audio-registered in natural play situations in the children´s home environment. Data was transcribed according to CHAT and analysed using the CLAN Program (MacWhinney & Snow, 1985). The analysis seeks to answer: a) how preschool children use evaluative language (defined as the use of evaluative and evidential resources) in order to produce arguments in a dispute; b) how uses of these evaluative expressions vary according to the children?s SES. The analysis considered the role played by each child in the dispute (proponent or opponent), the type of argumentative strategy used (reiteration, narration, anticipation, description, generalization, mitigation or intensification, alternative proposal, appeal to authority) and the resources of evaluation (emotion, cognition, intention, reported speech) and evidentiality (source of knowledge, mode of knowing, intensifiers and mitigators) employed. Results showed that, regardless of social group, children resort to evaluative language when they construct their argumentative strategies. Nevertheless, in mid SES disputes, we identified a greater quantity and variety of argumentative strategies and a more frequent use of resources of evaluation and evidentiality.