Abstract
The development of argumentative writing is studied here by examining the structural organization of argumentative texts. It is assumed that the ability to construct supporting relationships, that is, a conclusion statement supported by argument statements, is acquired gradually with age. The following stages of acquisition are postulated: (1) a preargumentation stage, where at first no explicit position is stated, and then an explicit position is stated but is not supported by an argument; (2) a minimal argumentation stage, where a position is explicitly taken and supported by one argument; and (3) an elaborated argumentation stage, where at least two unrelated supporting arguments are used, and then two related arguments are used.
Two corpora were gathered under similar conditions: collective debate in the classroom, followed by individual essays written on the chosen topic. The first corpus was produced by 147 children aged 7 to 14, and a group of 34 college students. The second corpus included the protocols of 92 children aged 11 to 16 the essays were graded for the presence or absence of each structural level, and then classified at the highest structural level exhibited.
The resulting classification largely confirmed the hypothesized order for the stages of argumentative development. The minimal argumentative structure (standpoint + one supporting argument) was mastered by nearly 90% of the 7 and 8 year-olds. The most elaborate structural level in our model (two related arguments) was attained later: less than one out of four 7–8 year olds versus three out of four beyond age 14. Techniques involving more complex argumentative relations such as refutations and counterarguments, or restriction of one argument by another, are mastered even later and seem to be strongly linked to the nature of the issues under debate.
Three main conclusions can be drawn from these results: precocious argumentative skills exist in children before age 11 or 12, argumentative discourse complexity continues to increase up to age 14 and beyond, and the characteristics of the referential domain of argumentation have an impact on this structural elaboration process.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Apotheloz, D., Brandt, P.-Y., & Quiroz, G. (in press). Champ et effets de la négation argumentative: contre-argumentation et mise en cause.Argumentation.
Apotheloz, D., & Mieville, D. (1989). Cohérence et discours argumenté. In M. Charolles (Ed.),The Resolution of discourse, (pp. 68–87). Hambourg: Buske Verlag.
Bassano, D., & Champaud, C. (1989). The argumentative connectivemême in French: an experimental study in eight-to ten-year-old children.Journal of Child Language, 16, 643–664.
Benoit, J., & Fayol, M. (1989). Le développement de la catégorisation des types de textes.Pratiques, 62, 71–85.
Botvin, G. J., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1977). The development of structural complexity in children’s fantasy narratives.Developmental Psychology, 13, 377–388.
Brassard, D.-G. (1987).Le développement des capacités discursives chez l’enfant de 8 à 12 ans. Le discours argumentatif (étude didactique). Doctoral thesis, University of Strasbourg.
Brassard, D.-G. (1990). Une approche psycholinguistique et didactique des textes argumentatifs écrits par des élèves de 8 à 13 ans.Enjeux, 19, 107–134.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1976). The development of functional persuasive skills in childhood and early adolescence.Child Development, 78, 1008–1014.
Coirier, P. (1991a).Argumentative discourse: Supporting structures and dicursive involvement. Communication at EARLI S.I.G. «Writing», January, Paris (Unpublished paper).
Coirier, P. (1991b). Production of argumentative discourse: the textual function of statements considered important by the speaker. In G. Denhière & J.-P. Rossi (Eds.),Text and Text Processing, (pp. 363–374). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Coirier, P., Coquin-Viennot, D., Golder, C., & Passerault, J.-M. (1990). Le traitement du discours argumentatif: recherches en production et en compréhension.Archives de Psychologie, 58, 315–348.
Coquin-Viennot, D., & Coirier, P. (1992). Structures of argumentative discourse: Effects of type of referential space.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2, 219–229.
Ebel, M. (1981). L’explication: acte de langage et légitimité du discours.Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 19, (56), 15–36.
Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts.Discourse Processes, 4, 149–170.
Espéret, E. (1984). Processus de production: genèse et rôle du schéma narratif dans la conduite de récit. In M. Moscato & G. Pieraut-Le Bonniec (Eds.),Langage: construction et actualisation, (pp. 179–196). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Espéret, E., Coirier, P., Coquin, D., & Passerault, J.-M. (1987). L’implication du locuteur dans son discours: discours argumentatifs formel et naturel.Argumentation, 1, 149–168.
Fayol, M. (1985).Le récit et sa construction: Une approche de psychologie cognitive. Neuchâtel, Paris: Delâchaux et Niestlé.
François, F. (1980). Dialogue, discussion et argumentation en début de scolarité.Pratiques, 28, 89–94.
Francois, F. (1983). Dialogue et argumentation chez l’enfant. Problèmes et propositions.Journée d’étude, 8, (pp. 73–84). Paris, Université de Paris V.
Genishi, C., & Di Paolo, M. (1982). Learning through argument in a preschool. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.),Communicating in the classroom, (pp. 49–68). New York: Academic Press.
Golder, C. (1990).Mise en place de la conduite de dialogue argumentatif. Thesis in Psychology (Ref. 84). University of Poitiers.
Golder, C. (1992a). Argumenter: de la justification à la négociation.Archives de Psychologie, 60, 3–24.
Golder, C. (1992b). Production of elaborated argumentative discourse: the role of cooperativeness.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 51–59.
Golder, C. (1992c). Mise en place de la conduite de dialogue argumentatif: la recevabilité des arguments.Revue de Phonétique Appliquée, 102, 31–43.
Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1991).Developmental aspects of argumentative discourse, some tentative explanations. Communication at EARLI S.I.G. «Writing», January, Paris (Unpublished paper).
Grize, J.-B. (1990).Logique et langage. Paris: Ophrys.
Grize, J.-B. (1985). Problèmes et méthodes d’une analyse de texte articulant organisation cognitive, argumentation et représentations sociales. (Recherches sur «Nouvelles technologies et représentations des salariés français et suisses.)Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, 49.
Miller, M. (1987). Culture and collective argumentation.Argumentation, 1, 175–199.
Passerault, J.-M., & Gaonac’h, D. (1989). The differentiation between two types of argumentative discourse in written and oral productions. In P. Boscolo (Ed.),Writing: Trends in European Research, (pp. 103–109). Padova: UPSEL Editore.
Piéraut-Le Bonniec, G., & Valette, M. (1987). Développement du raisonnement argumentatif chez l’adolescent. In G. Piéraut-Le Bonniec (Ed.),Connaître et le dire, (pp. 263–275). Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Schneuwly, B. (1988).Le langage écrit chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coirier, P., Golder, C. Writing argumentative text: A developmental study of the acquisition of supporting structures. Eur J Psychol Educ 8, 169–181 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173160
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173160