An interdisciplinary study of subdiscussions in children-adult argumentative interactions

Recent research has demonstrated that children, even very young ones, are capable of actively participating in argumentative discussions, some conditions being respected, such as the presence of adequate space (for a review cf. Bubikova-Moan & Sandvik, 2023; but see also: Hannken-Illjes & Bose, 2018; Convertini, 2019; Schär, 2018a; Greco & Perret-Clermont, 2022). It has also been shown how considering argumentation as a dialogical process allows for a better understanding of children’s argumentative contributions (Perret-Clermont et al., 2019). Following this stream of research, this dissertation explores the under-investigated phenomenon of children opening subdiscussions within argumentative interactions with peers and adults (cf. Schär, 2021). In argumentation studies, subdiscussions are defined as discussions nested within other discussions (cf. Krabbe, 2003), which emerge when, some aspect of the ongoing interaction is problematized and put into question by one of the parties (Eemeren van et al., 1993). Despite their important role in re-establishing agreement over the presupposed premises of an interaction, subdiscussions have received little attention in empirical research so far. In the context of children-adult argumentation, where misalignments and discrepancies of points of view between children and adults appear to be frequent (cf. Giglio, 2010; Mehmeti & Perret-Clermont, 2016; Greco et al., 2018; Perret-Clermont et al., 2019; Iannaccone et al., 2019; Kohler, 2020; Schär, 2021), it becomes particularly relevant to study how this process of negotiation of common ground works. Hence, the objective of the thesis is, first, to explore the “life cycle” of children-initiated subdiscussions within children-adult argumentative interactions: how do children’s subdiscussions emerge? How do they develop (if they develop)? How do they end (if they end)? Secondly, through an adapted argumentation design perspective (cf. Jackson, 2015; Aakhus & Jackson, 2005), this work concentrates on the consequences of a subdiscussion on the course of the interaction in which it emerged: how do adults respond to the opening of a subdiscussion by a child (cf. Greco et al., 2017)? Can children’s subdiscussions somehow shape the direction of the ongoing interaction? Empirically, the research is based on a corpus of around 32 hours of video recordings collected in a kindergarten in Italian-speaking Switzerland. The data consist of discussions between three-to-six-year-old children and their teachers during their daily activities. The subdiscussions identified in the corpus have been reconstructed and analyzed following a linguistics-based approach to argumentation, namely the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren, 2018) combined with the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT – Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2010; Rigotti & Greco, 2019). The dissertation also integrates insights from sociocultural psychology, which allow to observe children’s argumentation as a social and communicative interaction that takes place in a very specific context (cf. Muller Mirza et al., 2009). The main findings indicate that children frequently put into question their interlocutors’ (both peers’ and adults’) arguments. In particular, they problematize and attempt to rediscuss the material-contextual premises of these arguments and the issues proposed by adults in the interaction. Adults do not always take up these critical initiatives, either because of practical difficulties related to the class management, or because subdiscussions opened by children are perceived as ways to derail the conversation. When the subdiscussions opened by children are developed and reach a conclusion, the subdiscussions usually help the resolution of the main argumentative discussion, unless the interlocutors violate some rule from the ideal code of conduct of a critical discussion (cf. van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004), which leads to the abandonment of the whole discussion. Finally, after the conclusion of a subdiscussion, the interaction usually continues as if the subdiscussion has never occurred. Hence, the subdiscussion usually works as a parenthesis within the interaction. However, in few cases, subdiscussions left traces in the continuation of the interaction, which indicates that the subdiscussion opened by the child has shaped the discourse in a direction that might not coincide with the flow of the discussion that the adult was expecting. This dissertation intends to provide an empirical contribution to the domain of argumentation theory by exploring a concept that does not seem to have received much attention yet, and by illustrating its unfolding in a specific educational context. Furthermore, through the observation of children’s subdiscussions, this work aims at enhancing the understanding of the child’s activity in argumentative situations and to raise reflections about children’s engagement and their space in argumentative discourse. More specifically, the thesis acknowledges the child as an active interlocutor in argumentative discussions, and it raises awareness on the fact that the opening of a subdiscussion by a child is the occasion that allows to recognize that the child is making sense of the situation from his/her perspective, which might be different from that expected by the adult.