Options
Iannaccone, Antonio
Nom
Iannaccone, Antonio
Affiliation principale
Email
antonio.iannaccone@unine.ch
Identifiants
Résultat de la recherche
Voici les éléments 1 - 10 sur 17
- PublicationAccès libre
- PublicationAccès libreThe significance of the adversative connectives aber, mais, ma (‘but’) as indicators in young children’s argumentation(2020)
; ; ; Adversative connectives have been analyzed as articulating explicit and implicit facets of argumentative moves and have been thus recognized as potential argumentative indicators. Here we examine adversative connectives Ger. aber, Fr. mais, It. ma (‘but’) in young children’s speech in the context of the ArgImp project, a research endeavor seeking to understand in which situations children aged between two and six years engage in argumentation and how their contributions are structured. Two multilingual corpora have been collected for the project: (1) everyday family conversations, (2) semi-structured play activities and problem solving in a kindergarten setting. Through the detailed analysis of a small collection of examples, we consider the indicative potential of adversative connectives for identifying argumentative episodes in interactions involving young children and for the reconstruction of the inferential configurations of children’s contributions to these argumentative discussions. The results show that fully fledged argumentative interpretations of adversatives occur as a possibility in children’s speech, and that adversative connectives can be used profitably to identify less apparent argumentative confrontations and implicit standpoints in children’s speech. - PublicationMétadonnées seulement
- PublicationAccès libreShifting from a monological to a dialogical perspective on children’s argumentation. Lessons learned(2019)
; ; ; ; Rocci, AndreaWhen two- to six-year-old children contribute to argumentative discussion, how do they reason? Can Argumentation theory, a discipline that up to now has largely focused on adult expert productions, contribute to a psychological understanding of the child? And, in turn, can a close examination of children's argumentative moves contribute to the study of inference in argumentation? Our interdisciplinary research program ArgImp, at the crossroads of psychology, education and argumentation theory, tries to enrich these two lines of enquiry by conducting empirical studies with young children involved in argumentative activities and by analyzing them with models and methods borrowed from Argumentation theory (in particular, Plantin, 1996; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Rigotti and Greco, 2010).
Analyses of the efforts to introduce argumentation in learning activities at school reveal the theoretical and practical complexity of such ambition (Rapanta & Macagno, 2016; Schwarz & Baker, 2017). However, little is known about the psychological difficulties met by children in developing such skills, and the existing evidence seems contradictory. This has led us to a theoretical shift from argumentation seen as a "skill" to argumentation seen as a "contribution to a critical discussion". Our results show that a consideration of the dialogical (and not just individual) nature of argumentation and attention to argumentation as a process can help understand young children's reasoning activity and how it is embedded in their larger psychological activity. Adults tend to be centered on specific linguistic or cognitive behaviors expected from kids taking part in argumentative discourse, while our analyses reveal complex symbolic and relational work that children also accomplish in order to produce argumentation. They are active contributors to critical discussions using multiple argumentations and introducing issues. Often the inferences that children make are not the ones that adults expect and the latter then tend to interrupt them.
Children help us to shed a developmental light on argumentation: issues and standpoints are not always fixed but are likely to evolve in time; discussion issues are likely to be transformed as they are talked about; and standpoints are not always present before being co-constructed in the on-going dialogue. - PublicationAccès libreChildren as Investigators of Brunerian “Possible Worlds”. The Role of Narrative Scenarios in children’s Argumentative ThinkingReferring to the notion of “possible worlds”, the paper aims to investigate an intriguing aspect of children’s thinking: the function that play narrative scenarios in sharing with other partners (peers and adults) the child’s understanding of the physical and social reality. The idea of possible worlds to which this work relates, can be considered in some way as the legacy of Piaget’s pioneering research on symbolic thinking, currently referred in Harris’s perspective as “work of imagination”. Over the past few decades now, the notion of possible worlds has supported a new representation of the child’s thinking that is based on the idea that imagination allows children to explore alternative and multiple versions of reality. Among other things, imagination permits to the child to use sophisticated forms of causal reasoning and understanding of the rules of social life. By reconsidering a part of the literature on “possible worlds” and presenting two empirical observations, this paper wants to draw attention to the central role played by explorative thinking in child’s argumentative activities. Angelo, the three-year-old who is the protagonist of the episode reported, is a child like many: constantly relating to the social world, attentive to what is happening around him and, in particular, to the events in which he finds himself involved. Surprisingly equipped to position himself and act in the routines that he knows, but also capable of adopting effective strategies with respect to events that he cannot foresee and that are built constantly, and in a manner situated during interpersonal events. From a certain point of view, he acts in a competent way in the present, but thanks to previous experiences he seems equally ready to anticipate the activities that follow each other in the many scenarios of reality and fiction of which his daily experience is made up. In the example above, Angelo shows a precise interpretation of the situation (evidently based on previous experiences) and provides a solidly argued answer to his mother’s request. The reference to the socio-material context fully supports his argument with the use of a perceptive fact that is difficult to contest. As highlighted by the short sequence presented, the dialogue between Angelo and his mother undoubtedly takes on the characteristics of an argumentative activity. As in a court debate, the child/lawyer explores the relationships with the other participants, offering to the jury “material” evidence. This will allow him both to challenge his mother’s point of view and to defend his own authoritatively. To give an account of the variety of thinking strategies that Angelo exhibits and also to illustrate the exploratory function of argumentation in children, this paper will explore the idea that during social interaction each participant builds narrative versions of the world from his own point of view. As Bruner (2002) wrote, possible worlds offer the possibility of throwing new light on the “real” world. On a theoretical level, this rapid exchange in the family can be defined as an illustration of sophisticated thinking activities (partly argumentative) in a three-year-old child. In fact, only a few sequences of observation of the unstoppable activities of Angelo are sufficient, as they are of any other child in everyday life situations, to obtain a large number of useful elements to understand the active role of younger generations in challenging the rules of social worlds and in reproducing and creating new cultural forms during social interactions (Corsaro 1997). More specifically, this paper aims to showcase firstly how this way of acting in the physical and social reality emerges early in children’s development, especially in situations where they have to defend their point of view or try to convince someone to do something. Secondly, it wants to show that these early thinking strategies are displayed by children mainly as activities of exploration of narrative scenarios (possible worlds) that emerge during social interactions. In order to answer these central questions for the study of thinking in children, this paper will a) analyse the notion of “possible worlds” as Bruner refers to it, b) present two transcripts of social interactions that allow clear examples of the children’s thinking activity, and c) discuss studies that support the acceptance of early cognitive activity in children and the multipurpose and flexible nature of child’s learning capacities (Gopnik and Meltzoff 1998).
- PublicationAccès libreContributo allo studio dei tipi di argomento in situazioni di problem solving tecnico da parte di bambini in età prescolareL’argumentation peut être considérée comme un processus de raisonnement critique si important que des recherches l’ont étudié chez l’enfant très jeune (ex. Pontecorvo & Arcidiacono, 2010; Perret-Clermont, Arcidiacono, Breux, Greco & Miserez-Caperos, 2015). Dans cette thèse de doctorat, en lien avec ces recherches, l’enfant est reconnu en tant qu’argumentateur compétent. Dans le cadre d’une approche socio-culturelle et dialogique, ce travail propose une analyse systématique des lieux au sein d’échanges argumentatifs qui émergent dans des situations de résolution de problème technique chez les enfants de 3-6 ans. Peu d’études ont examiné les schémas d’arguments dans les argumentations (ex. Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2012) et qu’une partie d’entre elles se sont intéressées à la contribution du très jeune enfant (ex. Banks- Leite, 1998). Les lieux font partie des prémisses implicites de l’argumentation et indiquent la relation sémantique-ontologique sur laquelle s’appuie le raisonnement (ex. Rigotti & Greco, 2019). Puisqu’il n’existe pas qu’une seule manière de soutenir une thèse et les arguments peuvent dériver de lieux différents, ceux-ci peuvent permettre d’identifier le type de raisonnement inférentiel sur lequel l’argumentateur s’appuie. L’intérêt pour les lieux est justifié par le fait qu’ils peuvent renseigner sur le type de raisonnement mobilisé par l’enfant. Dans la présente thèse, une étude pilote a été d’abord réalisée pour examiner les argumentations et les activités proposées à l’enfant par l’adulte. Les résultats de cette étude initiale ont souligné la pertinence de considérer des aspects tels que la coresponsabilité de l’adulte dans le processus argumentatif, l’importance du groupe des pairs, ainsi que le rôle du contexte et du matériel à disposition pendant les activités réalisées. Sur la base des résultats de l’étude pilote, une phase de recherche a été implémentée pour la création et réalisation de trois tâches de résolution de problème technique. Une analyse cognitive à priori de chaque tâche a permis d’identifier les arguments de l’enfant par rapport aux raisonnements attendus par l’adulte. Les tâches ont été réalisées de manière collective et ont été filmées. A partir des transcriptions, les moments argumentatifs au cours des interactions ont été répertoriés. L’analyse a permis de reconstruire la structure argumentative des échanges parmi les participants en utilisant le modèle pragma-dialectique (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). L’Argumentum Model of Topics (cf. Rigotti & Greco, 2009, 2010) a été utilisé pour étudier les prémisses implicites de l’argumentation et identifier les lieux. Comme les lieux nous informent sur les modalités de raisonnement de l’enfant, les résultats de la présente recherche montrent des éléments intéressants sur comment les participants basent les argumentations sur des raisonnements complexes: par exemple, les enfants réfléchissent sur la pertinence d’un instrument par rapport au but, sur les conséquences négatives d’une action, sur la légitimité d’une action et sur son impossibilité métaphysique-ontologique. La comparaison entre les attentes de l’adulte et les argumentations des participants indique comment les enfants argumentent sur leurs activités, les confrontent, suivent le travail des pairs, discutent sur la possession d’objets et sur la possibilité ou l’impossibilité de travailler ensemble. Comme les enfants soutiennent leurs thèses sur la base d’arguments différents et montrent une capacité de raisonnement sur divers aspects de l’action, dans le cas de la résolution de problèmes techniques l’étude des types d’arguments a de la valeur au sein de la perspective multidisciplinaire adoptée. En effet, elle ouvre une ultérieure piste de travail pour expliciter le rapport entre les réponses de l’enfant et les attentes de l’adulte dans le cadre d’interactions argumentatives lors de la résolution de problème technique. La présente étude a permis de décrire de manière précise les dynamiques en jeu entre les adultes et les enfants dans de tels processus et a montré dans quelle mesure le raisonnement de l’enfant au sein des situations observées n’est pas indépendant des interactions. Cela suggère donc une interconnexion entre les aspects cognitifs, sociaux, culturels et matériels des échanges argumentatifs. Italiano L’argomentazione può essere considerata un processo di ragionamento critico così importante al punto che alcune ricerche hanno inteso indagarla già nel bambino molto piccolo (es. Pontecorvo & Arcidiacono, 2010; Perret-Clermont, Arcidiacono, Breux, Greco & Miserez- Caperos, 2015). In questa tesi di dottorato ed in linea con tali ricerche il bambino è riconosciuto come un abile argomentatore. All’interno di un approccio socioculturale e dialogico, il presente lavoro opera un’analisi dei luoghi negli scambi argomentativi emergenti in situazioni di problem solving tecnico in cui bambini di 3-6 anni sono invitati a lavorare insieme. Pochi studi hanno indagato gli schemi argomentativi nelle argomentazioni (es. Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2012) e solo una parte si è interessata al contributo del bambino piccolo (es. Banks-Leite, 1998). I luoghi sono parte delle premesse implicite nell’argomentazione ed indicano la relazione semantico-ontologica sulla quale poggia un ragionamento (es. Rigotti & Greco, 2019). Poiché non esiste un solo modo di supportare una stessa tesi e gli argomenti possono originare da luoghi diversi, il luogo permette di identificare il tipo di ragionamento inferenziale sul quale si basa l’argomentatore. L’interesse per i luoghi è giustificato dal fatto che essi possono fornire delle informazioni sui modi di ragionare del bambino. Nella presente tesi viene condotto dapprima uno studio pilota che ha come scopo l’indagine delle argomentazioni e delle attività proposte al bambino dall’adulto. I riscontri di tale primo studio hanno messo in rilievo l’importanza di considerare aspetti quali la co-responsabilità dell’adulto nel processo argomentativo, l’importanza del gruppo dei pari, oltre che il ruolo del contesto e dei materiali a disposizione durante le attività testate. Sulla base di quanto emerso dallo studio pilota è stata implementata una fase di ricerca in cui sono stati progettati e proposti ai bambini tre compiti relativi a casi di problem solving tecnico. Un’analisi a priori cognitiva di ogni compito ha permesso di identificare quali potrebbero essere gli argomenti del bambino in relazione ai ragionamenti attesi dall’adulto. I compiti sono stati realizzati collettivamente e sono stati videoregistrati. Sulla base delle trascrizioni sono stati individuati i momenti argomentativi nel corso delle interazioni. L’analisi ha permesso di ricostruire la struttura argomentativa degli scambi tra i partecipanti attraverso il prospetto analitico del modello pragma-dialettico (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). Per studiare le premesse implicite nell’argomentazione e identificare i luoghi è stato utilizzato come strumento l’Argumentum Model of Topics (cf. Rigotti & Greco, 2009, 2010). Poiché i luoghi forniscono informazioni sui modi di ragionare del bambino, i risultati della ricerca mostrano elementi interessanti che sottolineano come i partecipanti siano in grado di fondare le argomentazioni su ragionamenti sofisticati: i bambini riflettono, ad esempio, sull’adeguatezza di uno strumento rispetto allo scopo, sulle conseguenze negative di un’azione, sulla legittimità di un’azione e sulla sua impossibilità metafisica-ontologica. Dal confronto tra le attese dell’adulto e le argomentazioni dei partecipanti è emerso anche il fatto che i bambini argomentano in merito ai loro rispettivi lavori, li confrontano, monitorano il lavoro dei compagni, discutono sul possesso di oggetti e sulla possibilità o impossibilità di poter lavorare insieme. Dato che i bambini supportano le loro tesi sulla base di argomenti diversi e mostrano capacità di ragionamento su tanti aspetti dell’azione, nel caso della risoluzione di problemi tecnici lo studio dei tipi di argomento assume un valore all’interno della prospettiva multidisciplinare assunta. Infatti, esso apre un’ulteriore pista di indagine sul modo in cui è possibile esplicitare il rapporto tra le risposte del bambino e le attese dell’adulto nel corso di interazioni argomentative in situazioni di problem solving tecnico. Questo lavoro ha permesso di descrivere finemente le dinamiche in gioco tra adulti e bambini in tali processi, mostrando che il ragionamento del bambino nelle situazioni osservate non è indipendente dalle interazioni. Ciò suggerisce pertanto l’interconnessione tra aspetti cognitivi, sociali, culturali e materiali degli scambi argomentativi.
- PublicationAccès libreThe Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences(2018-12-18)
; ; ; ; ; This paper presents preliminary findings of the project [name omitted for anonymity]. This interdisciplinary project builds on Argumentation theory and developmental sociocultural psychology for the study of children’s argumentation. We reconstruct children’s inferences in adult-child and child-child dialogical interaction in conversation in different settings. We focus in particular on implicit premises using the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) for the reconstruction of the inferential configuration of arguments. Our findings reveal that sources of misunderstandings are more often than not due to misalignments of implicit premises between adults and children; these misalignments concern material premises rather than the inferential-procedural level. - PublicationMétadonnées seulementThe significance of the adversative connectives aber, mais, ma (‘but’) as indicators in young children’s argumentation(2018-2-7)
; ; ; - PublicationMétadonnées seulementAnalysing Implicit premises within children’s argumentative inferences(Londres: Oswald, S. & Maillat, D., 2018)
; ; ; ; ;