Upload
francisco-cadiz
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 1/32
Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical TopicsAuthor(s): Clotilde Pontecorvo and Hilda GirardetSource: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, Discourse and Shared Reasoning (1993), pp.365-395Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233745 .
Accessed: 27/04/2013 02:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and
Instruction.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 2/32
COGNITIONAND INSTRUCTION, 1993, 11(3 & 4), 365-395
Copyright? 1993, LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
ArguingandReasoning n
UnderstandingHistoricalTopics
Clotilde Pontecorvo and Hilda Girardet
University of Rome "LaSapienza"
The positive effect of social interactionon children'sreasoninghas frequentlybeen recognized.Social interactionprovidesa social supportsystem,particularlyfor the acquisition of procedural knowledge (Brown & Palincsar, 1989;
Pontecorvo, 1990). If learning s mainlya social process,an "entry nto a culture
via inductionby more skilled members"(Bruner,1986), what is learnedin a
social context is a process of behaving(Clancey, 1990).
Althoughsubstantial hangesarebeginning o be introducedn school contexts
and to appearn new
syllabusesand
curriculan
Italyand in othercountries,thesocial and constructive eaturesof learningarestill underestimatedn mostschool
teaching. For this reason, aiming to study the social processes of knowledge
acquisitionin a naturalsetting,we implementedsocial interactions n school by
designing innovative learning settings, which we call discussions, that make
possible a cognitive apprenticeship Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) in the
scientific ways of arguingand reasoning.Discussions are collective situations aimedat solving a problemin groupsof
differentsizes;theycan be led by a teacherormanagedautonomouslyby children
(Pontecorvo, 1986). School discussion can be a powerfulcontext for practicingand learning new reasoningbehavior if certainconditions for their realization
arecompliedwith, for example,starting romcommonexperience,having a very
problematicobject of discussion, and changing the rules of school discourse
when the teacher s leadingthe group(Pontecorvo,1990).As collectivediscourse,a discussion is based on more general conversationalskills that childrenhave
masteredbeforeenteringschool and even preschool:They have to learnto direct
those skills toward the goal of the instructional alk (Orsolini & Pontecorvo,
1992).
Requestsforreprints hould be sent to ClotildePontecorvo,Dipartimento i Psicologiadei Processi
di Sviluppoe Socializzazione,Universithdi Roma"La Sapienza,"Via dei Marsi78, 00185 Roma,
Italy.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 3/32
366 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
INTEGRATINGNACTIVITY-THEORYPPROACHWITHA VYGOTSKIANNE
Ourmaintheoreticalpointof reference nimplementingandanalyzingdiscussions
is offeredby the Vygotskianconstruct of semiotic mediation,as interpretedbyWertsch (1985a) and by Wertsch (1988). Children can be socialized to the
scholarlywayof knowing(Wertsch,1985b)by themediationof symbolicsystems
(Cole, 1990), first of all by language (Vygotsky, 1934/1990), which assumes
particulardiscursive forms in school, as Olson (1986) has shown. School
discourse has been the object of many sociolinguistic studies (Cazden, 1986;
Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). These studies have been more
interestedn identifying he conversational eaturesof this form of discoursethanin looking for the role of collective speech in knowledge acquisition.
Ourapproachs to look atschooldiscourse,as it is implementedndiscussions,as instructional alk throughwhich teaching-learninggoals can be carried out.
Speech is the main mediationaltool for the transmissionand constructionof
knowledge at school and also for the shift from the interpsychological o the
intrapsychological evel (Vygotsky, 1960/1974, 1978; Wertsch & Sammarco,
1985). In our research,however, speech is not considereda tool thatguides or
indirectly points to some "material"actions. Rather,"what has to be done"
togetheris a discursiveaction,and the actionthat has to be carriedout throughdiscourse is a social knowledge constructionthat is the object of ongoing
negotiationbetweenparticipants.The presenceof a goal-and-tool-mediatedctionin every typeof instructional
talkencouragedus to use the developmentsof the Vygotskianapproachproposed
by Leont'ev's theorization1959/1976, 1975/1977; Wertsch,1981) to frame and
explain the teaching activityand its specific actions andoperations.With these
threeconstructs, t is possible to identifydifferent evels of analysisof the overall
teaching-learningsetting-as we have alreadydone elsewhere (Pontecorvo&
Orsolini, 1992)-taking into account both its molar and molecularaspects.The
activity-theoryperspectivecan be useful for explainingthe level of actionwhere
there is a cultural and interpersonalmediation between teacher and child or
between childrenworking togetheron the same problem.Actions, which can
also be divided into subactions,arecharacterized y theirbeing drivenby a goal(and/orsubgoals)about which the interlocutors an share awareness.
The activityconstruct n Leont'ev's meaningis referred o in the most globallevel of analysis. It is a molar category that can explain the sociocultural
interpretation imposedon the context by the participant(s)"Wertsch,1985b,
p. 203). It is "the non-additive,molar unity of life for the material,corporeal
subject.... It is the unitof life that is mediatedby mental reflection" Leont'ev,1975/1977, pp. 67-68). The social definitionof the instructionalactivity used
by the participantss almost never fully defined at an explicit level. It can be
reconstructed nly at the level of operations-that is, when theagentsareactually
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 4/32
ARGUINGON HISTORICALOPICS 367
operatingwithin the social and interactivecontext in specific and distinctive
ways thatwe can reconstruct s being theexpressionof their"activity"definition.
In the case of class discussions, however, children's (and teachers')operationsare conversational nes. They arecarriedout throughverbal nteractionandshow
typicalconversational eaturesas studiedby sociolinguistics.Speech is used byall interactantsas an instrument or meaning constructionand negotiationand
for sharing topics and perspectives.
DOMAIN ROCEDURESANDEPISTEMIC CTIONS
Actions andoperationsareprimarilydiscursiveones, thatis, more or less actedout through discourse. They have to be assumed in their peculiar features,
however, which aredeterminedby the specific domain or object of knowledge.Because what has to be transmittedn school is a culturalobject of knowledge,which is characterizedby particularepistemological operations(e.g., types of
explanation, ways of reasoning,conceptualframeworks), t is essential to take
into account hepeculiar eaturesof eachknowledgedomain.Inpreviousresearch,we have studiedhow childrencarryout the peculiarways of knowing required
by naturalscience topics in classroom discussions (Castiglia, Pontecorvo,&
Zucchermaglio,1983;Pontecorvo& Zucchermaglio,1989), lookingforparticular
epistemic procedures Pontecorvo,1987) thatare involvedin collective discourse
andreasoningon scientifictopics. One of us (Girardet,1991) has worked on the
particular pistemic procedures hat are actuallyused by 9- and 10-year-olds n
teacher-ledschool discussions devoted to the explanationand interpretation f
historical events. In bothcases, the main focus of the teaching-learningactivitywas on procedural knowledge, although substantial pieces of declarative
knowledgewere always involved in thelearning asks.But,as Glaser and Bassok
(1989) emphasized,the importantdifferencebetweenexpertand novice ways of
knowingis thatexpertknowledgeis always moreprocedurally riented nasmuch
as it is easily accessiblefor acquiringnew knowledgeand for problemsolving.In this article,we specify further he particular pistemic procedures hatwe
have identified as the goal-mediatedactions. These actions are implied by our
historicalanalysistask,which involves the interpretationf a Roman historian's
judgment concerning the German populations. On the basis of research
concerningthe epistemologyof history (Gardiner,1961; Von Wright,1971), it
has been possible to identifythe proceduresof the historian'sprofession(whatthe
greatFrenchscholar,MarcBloch (1949), called mitier de l'historien)as a
rather well-defined set of methodological procedures accompaniedby a less
definedset of explanationprocedures.Historical epistemic actions consist of at least two components (Girardet,
1991). The first consists of higher level methodological and metacognitive
procedures,which arethebasis of historicalinterpretativectivity; theydeal with
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 5/32
368 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
the features of the historical source and the validity and relevance of the
information:Is the source authentic, reliable, truthful? Is the documentation
sufficient andpertinent?
What is the evidencefora historicalevent? Howcertain,
probable, or plausible are the data? The second component includes the
explanationproceduresused for the interpretationf particularhistorical events.
For social science topics, the mainexplanationprocedures nvolve: (a) defining
categories and words; (b) categorizingthe social and historical actors and/or
institutions;(c) locating events in time and in space; (d) interpretingactions,
plans, and intentions;and (e) relatingactors and actions to the historicaland
culturalcontext.
Theprecedinghistoricalepistemicactions also have to be practicedby novices
when learning history. These methodological and explanation proceduresresembletheparticular pistemicactions,with theirrelatedgoals, that are carried
out by experts when interpretinghistoricalevents and documents.The actions
arecarriedout in a social interaction ettingby particularinguisticandcognitive
operations,which can be identified as argumentative perationsbecauseof their
linkage of social arguingand individualreasoning.Ourhypothesis is that children as novices in the historical domaincan learn
to master these latter procedures by practicingthem in appropriate earningenvironments.
METHOD
Subjects ndTask
Ourstudy involved 30 subjects(mean age: 9 years, 5 months) of middle-class
background,who attended wo fourth-gradelasses at a primaryschool in Rome.
Before the teaching activity, each subject was administereda test aimed at
assessing relationsbetween social variables.
In this study,we have analyzeddata from six small-groupdiscussionscarried
out in groups composed of 5 children each (without the teacher) who were
consideringa historicalproblem.Children were asked to discuss togetherand
reach a shared judgment about the interpretativedescription that Ammiano
Marcellino(a Roman historianof the 4th century) gave of the Huns. The main
aim of the curriculumunit,which was sharedby the teachers,was to foster the
transition o cognitive and culturaldecentrationn childrenthroughthe studyof
"other"populationscomparedwiththe mainstream f the children'sown culture.
By overcominga simplistic evaluativeattitude,children could acquireskills to
explain the behavior of "different"populations if these populations were
understoodwithin their historical and culturalcontexts.
The task was preceded by curriculumactivities (guided by the teacherand
lastingfor about 10 hr of lesson time) involving the criticalreadingof historical
documentsconcerningGermanpopulationsin their relations with the Roman
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 6/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 369
Empire;only one group discussion was carriedout without the teacher before
the one analyzedhere.
The absence of the teacher and of any other adult guidance gives criticalimportanceto the way in which we presentedthe task to the children. The
following written text was given to the groupsof children:
Ammiano Marcellino is a Roman writer of the 4th century. In his
descriptionhe says that the Huns had habits similarto beasts.What
do you think he meant? Was he rightor wrong?Discuss it with your classmates, and write down the reasons that could
cause him to think in this way and whetheryou agree with him or
not.
The childrenwere asked to reach a consensuson: (a) what the historianmeant
by "habits imilar o beasts," b) his reasonsforsayingthis, (c) whetheror notthis
judgmentwas well grounded, d)thereasons or theHuns'"strange" ehavior,and
(e) the children'sreasons for agreeingor disagreeingwiththe historian.
The researchers'expectation(based on previous data: Girardet,1991) was
that the children would be engaged in the double distancingattitudesrequired
by the task, both toward the author and the Huns, by rejecting the evaluativeposition of the Roman historian and by contextualizingthe particularhabits of
the Hunswithintheir culturaland social organization. n bothcases, it is possibleto considerchildren'sinterpretative ctivity as aimed at negotiatinga contextof
plausibility, as Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958) defined it. Within this
context, the author'sjudgmentcan be acceptedor rejected,and, if rejected,the
Huns' behaviors can be accepted under certain conditions. Some groups have
graduallydeveloped more articulatedperspectives by discovering intermediate
positions that could take into account differentpoints of view.
Corpus f Data
The corpusis composed of six tape-recordeddiscussions for a total of 4 hr, 20
min of talk. Discussions were fully transcribedusing the following conventions:
xxx = word or sentencesthat were not identified
= shortpause
...= long pause
{ } = overlappings
The punctuation ries to representutterance ntonation.Each turn is numbered
progressivelywithin the discussion sequence and is marked by the subject'sname. Because the turn was not a significantunit in our data (as opposedto the
collective discussions in which interventions are shorter, because they are
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 7/32
370 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
propelledmainly by teachers'questions), we divided the turnwhen necessaryinto idea-units that correspondto linguistic clauses, as other researchershave
donewhen
studying individual(Voss, 1987) andcollective
(Resnick, Salmon,Zeitz, & Wathen,this issue) reasoning.
Hypothesis
This studyhas the descriptiveaim of showing if andhow the peculiarepistemic
procedurescharacteristicof historical reasoning can be practicedby children
when they are in a social situationthat supportstheir individuallinguisticand
cognitive activity. We assume the Vygotskian construct that children can
internalize and appropriate(Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989) the culturalreasoning proceduresof a scientific domain when, being supportedby the task
requestandby the social context(Wertsch,Minick,& Arns, 1984), they areputinthe conditionof applying heirgeneralargumentativekills to a specificdomain
problem(Pontecorvo,1990).
LevelsofAnalysis
Three levels of analysis were used. The first one is molar and identifies the
generalmood of thediscussion,what we have called in previouswork theframe
of discourse.Framehas been defined(Pontecorvo& Orsolini, 1989; Pontecorvo
& Zucchermaglio,1989) as a partor a phaseof a discussionthatis characterized
by a discursiveactivity and by a relatedcognitive function. Such functionsare
usually pursued by the teacher, who proposes her or his general goals to the
children'sgroupand oftenreproposes recycles) themin the course of discussion
(Pontecorvo & Orsolini, 1992). Because the functional and goal-directed
leadershipprovided by the teacheris not operating n the discussion here, the
object of discourseis framedby the children,who negotiatetheirinterpretationof the task thathas to be accomplished.In our case, the frame,as the dominant
cognitive activity that results from the negotiationbetween speakersabout a
historicaltask,comes closer to the methodological ssues of the historian's ools.
The second level, which is embedded in the first level, consists of smaller,well-identifiedreasoning sequences in which particularepistemic actions (or
subactions)arepursued.Sequencescorrespondo the level of actioninLeont'ev's
theory,and, in our case, they are similarto the explanationstrategiestypicalof
the historicaldomain.
Within these reasoning sequences, the third level of analysis looks at the
molecularoperationscarriedout throughthe idea units: the smallest units in
which the discourse is analyzed. Each idea unit is submitted to a double
categorization, looking at the specific argumentativeoperations (i.e., the
sociocognitivemotor of the discussion) and at the epistemic operationsused bychildren.At this level, we have also marked what was unexpressedby speakers
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 8/32
ARGUINGON HISTORICALTOPICS 371
andleft at an implicit level. In most cases, it is shared and does not requireany
explicit formulation.
RESULTS
FramesofDiscourse
Froma general analysisof the six discussions,two main framesemerge as waysin which the task was interpretedby the children'sgroups.Both are very close
to those used by thehistorians;but,althoughframeA corresponds o the explicitaim of the curricular ctivity,frameB is ratherunexpected, given the children's
ageand
grade.
A. Acceptabilityof the judgment of AmmianoMarcellino. This frame is
subdivided ntothefollowing questions:Werethe Hunsreallylike beasts?
What does it mean? What were the motives for their behavior?
B. Authenticityand reliability of the source. This frameis subdividedinto
the following questions:Is what AmmianoMarcellino said true?Was he
well documented?Is the source an authenticone?
In both cases, the participantsdiscussed whetherAmmiano Marcellino wasrightor wrongand whetherthey could or could not agreewith his interpretation,and they did it by reconstructingdifferent "contexts of plausibility." Two
groupdiscussions (COR and AOR)' are for the most partwithin frame A and
interpret he task accordingto its explicit aim. One groupdiscussion (ALU) is
completely within frame B, whereas threegroupdiscussions (DOR, BOR, and
BLU) present an alternationof the sequences in frame A and frame B. The
interpretations f the task and their relatedframes are summarized n Table 1,wherethe numberscorrespondto the turns of talk. Gaps between turnnumbers
indicate out-of-tasksequences.
Discussion equencesandEpistemicActions
The second level of analysis permits us to identify homogeneous reasoning
sequencesin whicha particular pistemicactionis practicedand canbe identified
as being more or less typical of the explanationproceduresof the knowledgedomain. Sequencesare identified within the frames as argumentativephases in
which a dominantcollective goal-mediatedaction is pursued.
We have identifiedthe following relevant actions:
'The first letterof the acronymsof the groupdiscussions refers to the orderin which the groupworked on the task (A, B, C, D); the last two letters refer to the two classroom teachers(LU and
OR).
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 9/32
372 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
TABLE1
SummaryContentof the Six Protocolsby Frames and Topics
1. COR:Is the judgmentof A. M. an acceptableone? (A)(1-20) Whatdoes "to be like a beast"mean?
(44-65) Is it possible to be different withoutbeing inferior?
(73-84) Do we have somethingin common with the Huns?
2. AOR: What is the meaningof being bestial or civilized? (A)
(1-30) Whatdoes "to be like a beast"mean?
(31-43) Whatdoes "to be civilized" mean?
(44-62) We have to locate the Huns in their time and context.
3. ALU: How reliable is A. M.? Is he an authenticsource?(B)
(1-42) Did A. M. really see them?Did he live at this time? Have we got enough proofto
decide?
(48-75) What did A. M. gain from saying/writingthese things?How could he know?
4. BOR
(1-9) What do we have to discuss?
(16-60) Is A. M. a reliableauthor? B)
(61-80) Were the Huns really like beasts? (A)
(81-92) How could we decide? (B)
(93-125) We have to locate the Huns in their time and context. (A)5. BLU
(1-23) Why are the Huns like beasts? (A)
(24-25) Does A. M. tell the truth? B)
(26-58) Whyare the Huns like beasts?
(A)6. DOR
(1-19) What do we have to do?
(20-32) Which sentencebest describes the Huns?
(33-37) Does A. M. tell the truth? B)
(38-57) Which sentence best describes the Huns?
(58-72) Does A. M. tell the truth? B)
Note. Numbers in parenthesesto the left of topics indicate turns of talk spanningthe topic.Frame(A or B) is given following appropriate opics. A. M. = AmmianoMarcellino.
1. Terminologicalandconceptualdefinitions.
2. Categorizationof social actors and of sociohistoricalphenomena.3. Locatingevents and phenomenain time and space.4. Interpreting ctions,plans, and intentionsof social actors.
5. Locatingactors and actions in theirhistoricalcontext.
These actions havebeendevelopedby the children n bothframeA and frame
B. We provide examplesof some of them in what follows.
OperationsndCategorizationystem
The categorization ystemhas been developedto take into account the relations
betweendiscourse and reasoningat the molecularlevel of the idea units where
the operationsoccur. A distinction was made betweentwo types of operations:
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 10/32
ARGUINGONHISTORICALOPICS 373
(a) the argumentative perations hatgive an accountof the collective discursive
activity and (b) the epistemic operationsthroughwhich the specific knowledge
domain is analyzed. As is specified further,an internallink, which should beverified in furtherresearch,could be assumedbetweenepistemic and argumen-tativeoperations,correspondingo the structure f collectivereasoningembedded
in the argumentativeactivity.
Argumentative perations. Theseareusedby thespeakers s a meansof
constructingand supporting heirreasoning(Toulmin, 1958). They areused bythe children as a means of constructing and supporting their claims and,
consequently, their reasoning and thinking. They can appear as any of the
following:
Claim: Any clause thatstates a position (thatcan be claimed).
Justification:Any clause that furnishes adequategroundsor warrants or
a claim.
Concession:Any clausethatconcedes something o anaddressee,admittinga point claimed in the dispute.
Opposition:Any claimthat denies what has beenclaimedby another,with
or withoutgiving reasons.Counteropposition:Any claim that opposes another'sopposition, which
can be more or less justified.
The categorizationof argumentativeoperations permits us to focus on the
developmentof the discourse-reasoningconstructedeither by a single speakeror by more than one. The link that is necessarilyestablishedbetween claims and
justifications s basic andcrucial,even for reasoning hatdevelopsmainlywithin
a single participant,whereasthe chainingbetweenopposition, counteropposition,and sometimes concession underlines the collective dimension of the shared
reasoning.Only at the argumentativeevel have we formulatedand categorizedwhat stays implicit in the collective discourse.In most cases, they are"implicitclaims,"which the speakersdo not need to make explicit; in a few cases, there
are also "implicit justifications"or both. Implicit idea-unitsare markedwith a
letterfollowing the numberof the clause to which they are linked (e.g., 1.4a in
Excerpt1, which appears n a later section).
Epistemic operations.Theseare
groundedn the
explanation roceduresand arespecified in termsof the particularhistoricalcontent to whichthey refer.
Epistemic operationscorrespond o the explanationprocedures hatareused for
describingand interpretinghistorical events. When used on the real sequencesof discourse, heyarein most cases accompaniedby a reference o thepeculiaritiesof the historicaltopic with which the speakersaredealing.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 11/32
374 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
Definition:A statementabout the essentialnatureof an event or about the
meaningof a word, includinga shift of meaning.
Categorization:When something is consideredas
beinga
memberof aclass, includinga shift of categorization.Predication:The action of assertingsomethingabouta topic withoutany
evaluative dimension.
Evaluation: The action of asserting something about a topic with an
evaluative dimension.
Appeal to: The action of supportinga claim by appealingto somethingthat the speakerconsiders relevant to the topic; the content of the
appealcan be:
"*Analogy."*Exemplarcases or instances.
"*Conditions.
"*Rules, general principles."*Motives/intentions/goals."*Consequences/implications."*Authority(expert,author,source).
"*Time."* ocioculturalcontext.
"* patialand temporalcontext.
The categorizationof the epistemic operationsshouldpermitus to distinguishbetween cognitive activities that are more frequentor appropriateo different
knowledgedomains. In particular,he differenttypes of "appeal o,"which have
been derived from Toulmin's construct concerning warrants and backings
(Pontecorvo, 1987), should be used differentlyin discussions concerningsuch
differing topics as naturalsciences versus social sciences.
Quantitativeescriptionf theOperations
To give a generaloverview of both argumentative ndepistemicoperations,we
presenttheir distribution n the whole corpus. As shown in Figure 1, most of
the idea unitsof the argumentative perationsareequallydivided into two main
groups:claims (42%)andjustifications(39%). It can be assertedthatdiscourse
proceeds almost through an alternate rhythm of claims and justifications.Concessions accountfor 8% of the units,whereas all theoppositionmoves reach
only 11%. Given the type of task, direct opposition does not have a strong
function;the roles of "opposer"and"opposee"are offeredby the documentand
underlinedby the task request.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 12/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 375
50-
40
30o
20
10
0
CLAIM
JUSTIFICATION
OONCESSION
OPPOSrITON
COUNTER-OPP
1FIGURE 1 Percentagedistributionof the argumentative perations.
Most of the epistemicoperations(see Figure2) areappeals(50%), followed
by predications(24%). Categorizations 12%) and evaluations(11%) are much
more frequentthan definitions(3%).
The distribution f appeals(see Figure3), which is themost frequent pistemic
operation,shows that more than one thirdareappealsto conditions,whereasthe
othertypes of appealsall occur with much lower frequency.Across the two categorizations,we find that 45% of claims are constituted
by predications(on the epistemic level), whereasjustificationsare for the most
part (75%) constitutedby appeals;the other types of epistemic operationsare
rare. The high frequencyof justificationsand the fact thatthey arein most cases
expressedthrough appealsconfirmthe dominantargumentative haracterof the
collective discourse in which the strongerpersuasivemeans are used.
50
40
30
20
10
0
APPEAL
PREDICATK)N
CATEGORIZATKON
EVALUATION
DEFINITION
1
FIGURE 2 Percentagedistributionof the epistemicoperations.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 13/32
376 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
40"
30
20
10
01
APPEALS O:
CONDfITON
RULE
TIMESOCIO-CULTURALONTEXT
DATA
INSTANCE/ANALOGY
AUTHORITY
FIGURE 3 Percentagedistributionof the appeals.
Cognitive ctions ndArgumentativeperations
Given the descriptive characterof this study and the particular ormatof the
conversationaldata in which we are interested, n what follows we describeand
commenton some protocolexcerpts.Reasoningsequencesexemplifyingdifferent
epistemicactions,withinthe two activities definedas frame A andframeB, are
categorized atthe level of the molecular
operations.We
provide examples,developedin some of the children'sreasoning sequences,that arerepresentativeof the mainepistemicactions.Accordingto our initialassumptions,such actions
are attemptsat appropriatinghe explanatoryproceduresof historicalreasoning
by practicingwith some of the historian'sreasoningtools.
The main title of each protocol corresponds o the main epistemic function
carriedout by the sequence;the subtitlespecifies the content of the frame and
in some way thetopic of the collective discourse.(Inexcerpts,A. M. = Ammiano
Marcellino.)2
Terminological efinition. In Excerpt 1 of frameA, the group aced the
problem of if and how the Huns' habits could be defined as normal. The
oppositionbetweenAndreaand Alessandraconcernedthe implicit definitionof
the word normal. Andrea adopted a relativist use of the word: If you are
accustomedto certainhabits,such as cuttingyour cheeks and following certain
laws, this is right and normal for you. Alessandraqualifiedthe same data in a
more absoluteway: Those habits cannot be considerednormal in any way, in
the sense of "being acceptablefor us."
Althoughtheentiresequencewasbuiltaround heepistemicaction of reachinga correctand shareddefinitionof theterminology,argumentative perationswere
2Given hatthe focus of thispresentations on thecodingof reasoningprocesses,the transcription
of the excerptshas been simplified, and the talk sequences have been translated nto English. The
originalItalianprotocolsare availableon request.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 14/32
Excerpt 1
(1) COR (Turns I to 4)
Terminological definition: What does it mean to say that the Huns were "like
beasts"? (frame A)
TALK
SEQUENCE
Andrea1.1 A.M. does not describe them very well
1.2 because if they have already been
brought up like that
1.3 forinstance,if we areused to cuttingourselves at birth
1.4 that is our custom
1.4a a custom is rightfor who holds it
1.5 and for us, this is right
1.6 it is the same for the Huns if theydo...
Filippo2.1 look, you are wrong, they were not the
Huns
Andrea3.1 no, they were the Huns
3.2 for the Huns it was normal to havethose laws
3.3 that's why they are not barbariansas
they say
Alessandra4.1 accordingto me A.M. is quite right
4.2 because from this document it is clear
4.3 that these people were not normal
4.3 making cuts frombirth to stop thebeardgrowing
4.4 I think it's a really bestial habit
ARGUMENTATIVEOPERATIONS
Claim
Justification
Justification
Initiating analogy
Claim
Implicit claim
Claim
JustificationEnd of the analogy
Opposition(conversational)
Counteropposition(conversational)
Justification
Claim
Opposition
Justification
Claim
Justification
Claim
EPISTEMICOPERATIONS
Evaluation
of the author'sjudgment
Categorizationof behaviors
Appeal to an instancefrom the source
Categorization
Evaluation
of the categorization
Appeal to the consequences
Evaluationof behaviors
Appeal to the consequences
Evaluationof the author'sjudgment
Appeal to the source
Evaluation
of the people
Appeal to an instancefrom the source
Evaluation
of people's behaviors
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 15/32
378 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
mainly constitutedby justificationsof personalclaims advanced both by the
opposerand the opposee.
Conceptualdefinition. InExcerpt of frameA, thetopic ookssimilar othe previousone, but herethe focus is on the conceptual efinition f beingcivilized. Aftera long silenceuntil thispoint,Andrearecycled(44) his opposition
Excerpt2
(2) COR (Turns 44 to 56)
Conceptual definition: Were the Huns inferior or different? (frame A)
TALK
SEQUENCE
Andrea44.1 no,no,no
44.2 I say that he is not right
Alessandra45.1 but why do you thinkthey are
civilized?!
45.1a you wouldbewrongif you said that
they were civilized
Filippo46.1 are they civilized?!
46.1a beingcivilized means to be like us
46. 2 are they like us?
Andrea47.1 they are not really civilized
47.1a there are differentdegreesofcivilization
47.2 they have one.... some laws to follow
Filippo48.1 but it was written on the text
48.2 that they didn't have laws
Andrea49.1 that'strue,but this was their custom
49.2 we cannot say that they werebarbarians
49.3 if that was their custom
Alessandra50.1 Andreabut
ARGUMENTATIVEOPERATIONS
Opposition
Claim
Counteropposition
Implicit claim
Counteropposition
Implicit justification
Counteropposition
Concession
Implicit claim
Justification
Justification
Opposition
Concession
Claim
Justification
Opposition
EPISTEMICOPERATIONS
Evaluationof the author'sjudgment
Categorizationof people
Categorizationof people
Appeal to an analogy
Recategorizationof people
Appeal to an existingcondition
Appeal to the source
Appeal to a lacking condition
Recategorizationof people's behavior
Appeal to the consequences
Recategorization
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 16/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 379
50.2 this is the description of a people Justification Appeal to textual aspects of
who were barbarians the source
Filippo
51.1 then we are right Andrea Claim Evaluationof one'sown knowing
Andrea52.1 and why weren't they civilized? Counteropposition Categorization
Alessandra53.1a they were not civilized Implicit claim
53.1 because they didn't have a roof Justification Definition
53. 2 they didn't follow the laws Justification Definition
53 .2a civilization = houseand laws Implicit justification
Filippo54.1 wait a moment, we can say that they Claim Definition
didn't use to eat like us
54.2 we don'tgo down the road,pick roots Justification Appeal to an analogyand eat them, we don't do that
54.3 we eat cooked food.., raw meat, we Justification Appeal to an analogydon't eat raw meat
54.3a they are different rom us Implicit claim
54.4 we are more civilized thanthey
Claim Recategorizationof a people
Andrea55.1 it's true,but they were more Concession Appeal to time
backward
55.1a whoeverprecedesus in time is Implicit justification
justified in being less civilized
Filippo56 Yes, that'strue Concession Predication on 55.1
to the historian'sjudgment, which he had already presented in I and 3 (see
Excerpt 1). After havingreceived strong oppositionthat included ironicand/orrhetoricalquestions (45 and 46), Andrea insisted that it was possible to have
differentways of behavingand different aws (inthe sense of rules)to be followed
(47 and 49). These differences could be justified because of one's being"backward"55). This concession was recognizedas acceptableby others.
The epistemic action carried out here related to the representationof the
concept of being civilized. The sequence was more clearly focused than the
previousone on the possibility, brought up by Andrea,of a graduatedposition;that is, the concept that there are different degrees of civilization and that
civilizationmust be evaluatedwithrespectto its time. Theargumentativetrategyused by the opposers was mainly "extremization" f the opposee's arguments,whereas the opposee produceddifferenttypes of graduation,as concessions, a
kind of argumentative caling (Ducrot, 1980), and therebysucceededin havinghis more balancedposition accepted.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 17/32
380 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
Interpretinglans,actions,andmotivesof the actors. DuringExcerpt3
of frameB, thegroupfaced a topicsimilarto thatof thepreviousgroup;however,
inthis case,
the children focusedprimarily
onoffering
reasons anddescriptivedetails,drawnexplicitlyfrom the source,to interprethe life and behaviorof the
Huns. Thus, they found some positive points in the Huns that contradicted he
judgmentof Ammiano Marcellino:The Huns were technicallyadvanced n war
Excerpt3
(3) AOR (Turns 14 to 22)
Interpreting plans, actions, and motives of the actors: Reasons accounting for the
characteristics of the Huns (frame A)
TALK
SEQUENCE
Giulia14.1 then, perhaps these people were
used to living like that fromchildhood
14.2 because, given the circumstancesthat
they lived in horrible places
14.3 so perhaps they didn't have the
possibility of being civilized
14.3a one learns one'sown wayofbehaving from parents
14.4 because they had learned to be like
that, in this way over generations,then..
(15-17:digression)
Pace18.1 I wanted to say something similar to
Giulia
18.2 that this population, the Huns, sincechildhood, besides being used to
hunger, thirst
18.3 perhaps they were not, they didn'thave a good educationas a
population
18.4 that's why they could not havemuch power over the other
populations
18.5 because they weren't very intelligent
18.5a to be educated= to be intelligent
18.6 a very important thing about theHuns was their technique in war
18.7 they had a very good and advanced
technique
ARGUMENTATIVEOPERATIONS
Justification
Justification
Claim
Implicit justification
Justification
Claim
Justification
Justification
Claim
Justification
Implicit claim
Claim
Claim
EPISTEMIC
OPERATIONS
Appeal to the socioculturalcontext
Appeal to the spatialcontext
Categorizationa
of the possibility
Appeal to a ruleof cultural transmission
Predicationon own intervention
Appeal to cultural context(data from the source)
Appeal to a condition
Appeal to a consequenceof the condition
Appeal to a condition
Predicationon a people's ability
Evaluationof a people's ability
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 18/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 381
Chiara
19.1 I don't think they were bestial
19.2 they were like savages
19.3 but not exactlysavages, justa kind of
savage
19.4 but they had already invented manythings
19.4a if one invents many things,he is nota savage
Luca20.1 as Pace says, they were not very
strong in war
20.2 I don't think it was true
20.3 in the document it is written that
they were called the most frighteningwarriors
Giulia21.1 I wanted to say thataccordingto me
maybe he meant
21.2 maybe I agree that they were bestial
21.3 maybe because at that time theyhad not yet discovered thesecivilizations
21.4 the meaning of the word civilizedwas not clear yet
21.5 only the very rich persons had theluck of being civilized
21.6 of being,of going to school
Pace22.1 I wanted to say that the Huns were
already not a primitive population
22.2 because they alreadyknew how toraise cattle and they knew manythings
22.3 but they did not have much food,
they ate meat, milk
22.4 I meant that the Alans alreadyknew how to raise cattle
22.5 so they ate milk and a lot of meat
22.6 because they had a lot of cows
22.6a raisingcattle is a markofcivilization
Claim
Claim
Concession
Justification
Implicit justificationand claim
Claim
Opposition
Justification
Conversational stance
Claim
Justification
Justification
Concession
Justification
Claim
Justification
Concession
Justification
Claim
Justification
Implicit claim
Evaluationof the author's
categorization
Recategorizationin terms of civilization's
degreeCategorization
Definition
of an aspect of the category
Predication
on a people's ability
Predication
Appeal to data from thesource
Evaluation
of the author'scategorization
Appeal to the timeas reason for the absence of
civilization
Appeal to the timeas reason for the absence
Appeal to the socio-culturalcontext
(economic differences)
Appeal to a rule
Categorizationof a people in relative terms
Appeal to conditions
Appeal to a rule
Appeal to a condition
Predication
on people's characteristics
Appeal to a condition
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 19/32
382 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
(18.7and 0.3);heyhad nvented anyhings19.4);ndheyknew ow oraisecattle22.2).The hildrenlsostressedomenegativespects:heHuns idnot
knowhemeaningfbeingivilized21.3);heywere ot ducated18.3), ecauseonlya fewcould otoschool21.4).They oncluded,owever,hatheHunswerenot ikebeasts19.1),but heywere"akind fsavage eople"19.3).
Themain pistemicctionwas o understandnd xplain,nthedoubleenseoffered yVonWright1971),hemotives nd ituationf thispopulationyrelatinghem otheir istoricalnd ulturalontext. rom nargumentativeointofview, hesequenceascharacterizedyalackofstraightppositionetweenthe nteractants.herewasaprevalencefconcessionsndpartialegationsfstatementshat ouldbe toostrong,orexample:Theyouldn't avea good
education"18.3), Theyouldn'tavemuch ower"18.4),"They eren'teryintelligent"18.5),"Theyadnotyetdiscoveredhese ivilizations"21.3),"Themeaningf thewordivilized asnotvery lear"21.4).Thedominantrgumen-tativemood fthis equenceascharacterizedya"not... much"attern.
Interpretingctionsand motivesof thehistorian.InExcerpt, which
developedwithin rameB, thegroup ocusedontheproblemf source eliabilityand on the conditions or beinga goodhistorian.One of the implicit tarting
Excerpt4
(4) BOR (Turns 25 to 38)
Interpreting actions and motives of the historian: Exploring conditions for a reliable
source (frame B)
TALK ARGUMENTATIVE EPISTEMIC
SEQUENCE OPERATIONS OPERATIONS
Fulvio25.1 well Marcellino Marcellotti, we Claim Appeal to a necessary
don't know if truly, if he could truly condition
have...
25.1a a historian must have seen what Implicit justificationhe describes
25.2 he doesn't know Claim Predicationon author'sknowledge
253 he, he thinks it's like that Claim Predication
25.4 but he cannot say:I saw it, I did it Claim Appealto a consequence
25.5 because he did not see those things Justification Appeal to a condition
(to be eyewitness)Chiara26.1 sorry,Fulvio,but A.M. was a writer Opposition Categorization
of the author as a writer26.2 and he should have... Justification Appeal to a rule
of the writer'sFulvio27.1 all right, but he was not living Counter-opposition Appeal to a necessary
condition
Chiara28.1 he was of the fourthor sixth century Justification of 26.1 Appeal to a necessary
condition
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 20/32
28.2 so he had to... maybe he saw them Claim Appealto the consequence
28.3 to make these observationshe must Justification Predicationhave seen them, well, eat and ... on theprocedure
(29-32 = digression)
Marco33.1 even if he could not know Concession Predication
on author's knowledge33.2 he had seen some document,some- Justification Appeal to
thing that describes the Huns an alternative condition
warrantingthe rightness ofthe procedure
33.2a since documentsaresourcesof Implicit justification
knowledge
33.2b A.M. can be reliable Implicit claim
Giovanni
34.1 I wanted to say to Fulvio that he Opposition Predicationmust have known on author'sknowledge
34.2 because all writers, before they do Justification Appeal to a proceduralrule
things, they look, see and then write
34.3 and they are very good at saying Justification Evaluationhow they did the things of writer'scompetence
Tommaso35.1 I think Fulvio is almost right, in fact Claim Predication
on a claim of another child
35.2 but it is not a really sure thing Concession Evaluation
35.3 because he probablycannot speakon, Justification of 35.2 Appealto a consequencespeakon randomly
35.4 he cannot foreseewhere this Justification Appeal to a general principledocument will end up
35.5 so he must tell the truth Claim Appeal toa consequenceof the general principle
35.6 he cannot write imaginary things Claim Appeal to a consequenceof the general principle
Marco36.1 indeed he is right in a way Claim Predication on author's
knowledge
36.2 before saying something you have to Justification Appeal to a proceduralrulesee (eyewitness)
36.3 you see how they live from the Justification Appeal to aproceduralruledocuments
Chiara37.1 as Marco said Claim Predication on a claim of
another child37.2 because when someone has to write Claim Appeal to an instance
on the Romans, like him writingabout the
Romans,37.3 he did not invent everything Claim Predication on author's
honesty37.4 he could have been either a Roman Justification Categorization
of the author37.5 or someone who had an ancestor who Justification Categorization
had told him transmitting this of the author as descendantRoman stuff, maybe this as well... (oral tradition)
383
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 21/32
384 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
pointsof thecollective reasoningwas: "In orderto be a historian,you must have
seen what you describe" (25, 27, and 28). This is a rathercommon-sense
assumption,drawnperhaps romthe news world,but which was corrected n the
discussion by referring o documents(33 and 36), to oral tradition 37), and to
the skills of the writer(the historian s considereda writer),who is supposedto
follow a kind of Gricean(Grice, 1975) rule of "telling the truth" 35.5).
This representeda combinedepistemic action. The complex methodological
problemof establishingvalidity, reliability,andrelevanceof the historicalsource
was associatedwith the usualexplanationproceduresof interpretingonditions,
actions, and motives of the historian as a particulartype of historical actor.
Because the main questionconcernedthe authenticityof the historicalsource,
there was opposition between those who took the position that AmmianoMarcellino was unreliablebecausehe could not have seen the Huns, and those
who said that a historian'swritinghas to be truthfulby using documents as a
source of information which is exactly the idea of history that the curriculum
triedto transmit). nopposingone another, he childrenappealed o generalrules
of behavior and to necessaryconditions,even by inferringconsequencesfrom
rules and conditions.
Locatinghe documentn its historical ontext. InExcerpt5 of frame
B, the childrendevelopeda coherentreasoningaboutthe material mpossibilityof the historian'shaving writtenthis text at that time. They reached a shared
Excerpt 5
(5) ALU (Turns 18 to 26)
Locating the document in its historical context: Challenging the authenticity of
the source (frame B)
TALK ARGUMENTATIVE EPISTEMIC
SEQUENCE OPERATIONS OPERATIONS
Filippo18.1 now I would say "wedo not agree" Claim (Recycle the task)
why?
Paolo19.1 1do not much agreebecauseA.M... Claim Predication
on one's own claim
19.2 I'vechanged my idea from what I Claim Predication
said before on one'sown claim
19.3 I don't think A.M. lived at that time Claim Appeal toa necessary condition of the
source's authenticity19.3a to write history you must have Implicit justification
lived at the same time as the event
19.4 it seems difficult he can have Justification Predicationwritten this document on the implausibility of a
necessarycondition
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 22/32
19.5 because therewere not many pens Justification Appeal to materialand paper conditions
19.6 or, I mean, Idon't think A.M. is right Claim Evaluationof author's claim
19.6a he cannot have written this text Implicit claim
19.7 these are my impressions Claim Predicationon own claim
19.8 and even if A.M. had written this Claim Predicationdocument in ancienttimes Counterfactual strategy on the source authenticity
initiating
19.9 but it must be seen how he succeeded Claim Appeal toin looking at them a necessary condition
(eyewitness)
19.10 since they had very bestial habits Justification Appeal to datafrom the source
19.11 so they could even kill him Justification Appealto a consequenceof source's data
19.11a thus either it is false that they Implicit claimwere bestial or it is false that he had Counterfactual strategylived at that time and had seen them initiating
Nicola20.1 Right! what Paolo said is right Claim Predication on 19.1
20.2 because he could not have lived at Claim Appeal to anecessarythat time condition
203 also because I think that if he had Claim Predicationlived in those times, in the Middle Counterfactual strategy on timecontemporaneityAges initiating
20.4 not everyone could have, let's say, in Justification Appeal to socioculturalthe Romantimes and so not everyone contextcould write (scarcediffusion of writing)
20.5 and they could not producea Justification Appeal to sociocultural
description of people with such contextanomalous laws
20.6 I think that no one could have done Claim Predicationthis description then Counterfactual strategy on cultural impossibility
ending
Filippo
21.1 instead, I think something that Claim Predication on own claimperhaps does not fit in
21.2 that is, I mean I partly agree and Claim Predication on own claim
partly I don't agree
21.3 because when A.M.,well, he could Justification Appealto a consequenceeasily have been killed for the author of data from
the source
21.4 or he could have had some problems Concession Appeal to a consequencein seeing, in getting in touch with the for the author of data fromAlans or Huns the source
21.5 because either he was an Alan or a Claim CategorizationHun of the authoras member of
the people of the source
21.6 or what he has written is somewhat Claim Predicationfalse on the source'suntruth
385
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 23/32
386 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
Paolo22.1 1think at that time they could not Justification Appeal to a necessary
read and write condition (lackofinstrumental abilities)
22.2 thus it was very hard for A.M. to Claim Predicationhave written that document on the improbability of the
attribution of the sourceNicola
23.1 because, if he had writtenon these Claim Predicationsheets of paper,on sheets of paper Counterfactual strategy on the possibility of the
initiating material production
23.2 I think that, at this time, the sheets Justification Appeal to timewould alreadyhave turned to dust as reason for the source's
material deterioration23.3 in short, as time goes by, the sheets Justification Appeal to time
turntodust as reason for the source'smaterial deterioration
23.4 Two or threethousand years have Justification Appeal to
passed, I believe the amount of time
23.4a source s not authentic Implicit claim
23.5 so the sheets wouldn'thave been Claim Appeal to the consequencesfound any more, they would have Counterfactualstrategy of timepassingon thesourcebeenturnedto dust ending
Filippo24.1 it could easily have been written on Claim Predication
a stone, for instance on alternative procedures(other materials on which
the source was written)24.2 or remnants of huts
might have been Claim Predicationfound on alternative procedures(othersources)
24.3 and they would prove naturally... in Justification Appeal to material aspectsthe building, perhaps in the way it of the socio-cultural contextwas used, how they used it
Nicola25.1 1 think that if he had written it on a Opposition Predication
stone Counterfactualstrategy on the possibility of the
initiating condition (writing material)
25.2 they couldn't have written that is Justification Appeal to datawritten there everything, everything from the source(amountof
information)
25.3 simply becausewritingon stone is not Justification Appeal to a general principlethe same as writingon paper
25.4 thus I think that all this news Claim Predicationwould not have been understox)d;n Counterfactualstrategy on thequalityof source'sshort,do you understand? ending information
25.4a but since they are understandable Implicit justification
25.4b thus the source is false Implicit claim
conclusion that the source was false (21.6) because of: the lack of paperand
pencil (19.5), the inevitabledeteriorationof the paperif it existed (23), a lackof writingand descriptiveskills duringthat time (20), and the impossibilityof
writing such a text on a stone (25). Counterfactual easoning (19.8 to 19.11)directly challenged the content of Ammiano Marcellino'sjudgment:What he
says is not true,because if he had really seen this populationwith his own eyes
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 24/32
ARGUINGNHISTORICALOPICS 387
(19.9), the Huns would have killed him, being cruel and"like beasts."So, either
he was one of them,and thus the statementthat he was a Romanwould be false,
or what he wrote about the Huns(21.6) was false, andtheywerenot "like beasts."Thedominantpistemic ctionhereconcernedhereliability ndauthenticityof the historical source, which was radically challenged by the children's
analyzingboth culturaland materialimpossibility, as shown in the preceding.
Excerpt 5 was characterizedby the presence of three complex counterfactual
strategies (starting at 20.3, 23.1, and 25.1) by which children used single
argumentativeperationso reacha morecomplexargumentativeoal. Giventhe main topic of the sequence,argumentativeoperationswere characterizedbythe demonstrationof the impossibility-based on conditionsand consequences
and being both material and cultural-of the authenticityof the source.
DiscourseOrganizationnd Interaction ode
The linearorganizationof the written text does not do full justice to either the
complex articulationof the individualreasoningor the differentmodes throughwhich the shared discourse and reasoningwere carriedout. At this point, we
were pushed to find a better representationof the links existing among the
differentpartsof the discourse-reasoning, rying to representgraphicallytheirinternalandsometimes hierarchical rder,as is doneby Resnicket al. (this issue).
Also usingthe turnas a unit of analysis,it was possibleto discoverthe internal
structure of the discourse with its different levels of articulation.The main
position expressedby the speaker,whose claim could be more or less justified,was supportedn most cases by anorganizedset of justificationsand claims that
had the subordinate unction ofjustifyingthe mainposition.Thesemorecomplex
argumentscould be structuredaccordingto differentmodes, and some of them
could be identifiedmoreeasilyon the basis of theirepistemiccontent; orinstance,
they maderepeateduse of analogiesor of counteropposed xamples.The example reportedin Figure 4 representsTurn4 of Excerpt 1 in which
Alessandraexpressedherposition in five clauses. In her first clause, Alessandra
statedherposition throughan evaluation "According o me AmmianoMarcellino
is quite right"), after which followed an argumentativestructure aimed at
justifyingthepositionandorganizedon two levels: first,a claimandajustificationwith an appealto the source ("becausefrom this document t is clear/ that these
people were not normal"); hen, a second claim (anotherevaluation)groundedon a justificationthat used an appealto an example ("makingcuts from birthto
stop the beardgrowing/ I think it's really a bestial habit").The speakerstended to use the same structure n differentturns of the same
conversation as if they were following an argumentativestyle: Alessandra
repeateda similar structuren Turn6 (see Figure5) and in Turn 53 (see Figure6) of the same discussion.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 25/32
r N A W , 1 0 A
SOURCE
CATEGORY
EXAMPLE
EVALUATE
LEGEND
I 1
C D >
Claim
Opposition/CounterOpposition
Justification
ImplicitPresupposition
Concession
DEStructure ofJustification
Structureofattack
Structure
containinganotherstructure
++
Link
Development
LinkJustification with Claim
OppositionLink
FIGURE The nternaltructuref
theturn Alessandra,urn , Excerpt1).
388
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 26/32
ANDREA FILIPPO ALESSANDRA
VALUATE ATEGORY
EXAMPLE
VALUATE
V A L U A T E
24
O N S E
V A L U A T E
C O N S E Q .
SOURCE
ATEGORY
E X A M P L
ATEGORYVALUATE
EXAMPL
EXAMPL
+
6EXAMPL
ISOURCEATEGORY
ATEGORY + +
D A T A
ATEGORY
ATEGORY
FIGURE 5 Graphical representationof a sequence of turns (from Excerpt 1). Numbers
representturns.
389
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 27/32
Andrea AlessandraVALUATE
V A L U A T E
A N A L O G
', 0
co~sEQ.SOURCO N S E Q .- - I D
TEGOR
51 53
TIME
V A L U A T E V A
D A T A
D A T A
A T E G O R Y
4&%
55/////<' ATEGORY
T I M E
++
FIGURE6 Graphicalepresentationf a sequence f turns fromExcerpt ). Numbers
representurns.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 28/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 391
This type of graphicrepresentationnhancesunderstanding f the interaction
modes used by the speakers duringthis discursiveactivity, which can be much
more intensive than is indicatedby a simple count of frequencies.In Figure 5, the discussion reported n Excerpt 1 is representedgraphically.Eachspeaker'snameappears n a column:The vertical ine enables us to examine
the argumentdeveloped by a single speaker,whereas the horizontal line makes
it possible to focus on the exchangesamong speakers.When we consider the same speaker(Andrea n Turns1 and 3, or Alessandra
in Turns 4 and 6 of Figure 5), it is possible to look at the structureof the
individual'sdiscourse and at the ways in which they coconstructreasoning in
agreementor oppositionwith the other speakers.When the exchangesbetween
speakersare focused, it is possible to distinguishbetween different interactionmodes. For instance,oppositioncan concern the refusalof one single claim, as
in the case of Filippo in Turn 2 opposing Andrea's Turn 1. But it can also
concern an entire argumentative tructure,as in the case of Alessandrain Turn4 (opposingAndrea'sTurn3):This opposition s carriedout through he complex
argumentative tructureanalyzed in Figure 4.
Such graphicalrepresentationsmake possible an overview of the dynamicsof the interactionalexchanges that produce differenttypes of patterns.In the
reasoningsequencepresentednFigure5, eachspeakerexposes his or herthinking
in a rather structuredway, whereas in othermoments of the same discussion,which arereportedn Excerpt2 andpartiallyrepresentedn Figure6, thedifferent
turnsare shorterandmorefrequent,and theexchangesof counteropposed laims
arefaster,often supportedby singlejustificationsor by simplified argumentativestructures.
DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION
Our differentdataanalysesshow that autonomous nteractionalactivitiescan be
extremelyrich situations n terms of theproductionof high-level reasoning,even
in young children. Such group discussions could be defined as situations of
"cognitive apprenticeship"Collins et al., 1989) in which reasoning is both a
situated and a distributedaction existing in the social realityof negotiationwith
othersand with the task.As Bruner 1990) alsoemphasized,a person's knowledgeis not just in one's own head but also in the notes, in the underlinedbooks, in
the informationsources, in the friendsone can call on for help, in what results
from social interactionwith others.
The complexity of children's sharedreasoningmade it necessaryto developa pluralityof analyticalinstruments o account for the different dimensions of
the reasoning,on both the argumentative nd epistemic levels.
The identification of general frames of discourse and of more specific
epistemic actions was particularly ffective in emphasizingthe characterof the
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 29/32
392 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
"social negotiation" of children's cognitive activity. The absence of the
teacher-usually the personwho aims to bringthe children to an understandingof the
topicandto
acquirecorrecthistorical
knowledge--compelledthe children
to engage in much negotiationactivity in interpretinghe task assignedto them
(Edwards& Mercer,1987). The children understood he features of the specifichistorical activity, although they carried it out within different frames and
consequentlythroughdifferentepistemic actions, which are very close to the
proceduresof historicalreasoning.The molecularsystemsof analysisconcerning heargumentative ndepistemic
operationswere productivein focusing the structureof the shared reasoning,both within the individual and the group, in ways that were relevant to the
historical topic. On this basis, it is possible to confirm our hypothesis thatelementary chool childrencanpracticeandgraduallymastercognitiveskills and
tools of a specific knowledge domain when they are supported by a learningenvironment hat offers a meaningfulproblematic ramework hat can be shared
in a group.The identification of more complex argumentativestructures (as other
researchershave also done: see Resnick et al., this issue) reveals different
interactionmodes and argumentativestyles in subjects and in groups. With
longitudinaldata,it may be possible to verify the evolution and/orthe "passage"
of a reasoningstructure romone child to anotheras an effect of the interactionwith peers in appropriate earningenvironments. ndeed,the exchangeconcerns
not only the appropriation f informational lements but also the acquisitionof
reasoning strategies,the core of which is given by the structures f justification.From a proceduralpoint of view, children could succeed in practicingand
mastering he methodologicalandexplanatory ools of the historian,as we have
shown throughthe protocol analysis.From a declarativepoint of view, the lack
of adult guidance sometimes leads children onto divergent paths: Adequateteacherinterventionwould have been extremely useful in such cases, offering
childrenthe relevant historicalinformationand redirecting heir argumentationand reasoning.
Comparing hese discussions with those led by teachers(Pontecorvo, 1993),
however, we can say that children'sautonomouscollective discourseis often on
a higher cognitive level thanthatguideddirectly by theteacher(Girardet,1991).The aim of masteringthe tools of arguingand thinkingwithin a subjectfield is
probably better reached through this type of unguided discussion dispute.
Nevertheless, such discourse occurs within the school context and provides a
kind of assessment of what has alreadybeen done in class in the knowledge
domain of history. Problem-solving group settings can also be regarded as"contextualizedmeasures"of how much childrenhave masteredthe actionsand
goals proposedto them by their teachersthroughthe curriculum.At the same
time, thechildren,who engagedthemselvesautonomously n discussingwhether
the judgmentof the Romanhistorian was well grounded,showed that they not
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 30/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 393
only understoodhe specificfeatures f the historicalask but also weremore
generally ocialized o a representationf the learning ctivityas an "active"
counterpartf theteaching.notherwords, hesechildrenmplicitly hared heideathat n schoolone has to engage n understanding,xplaining, easoning,andarguing. heengagementf thesechildrenn a difficultask, hownbytheir
eagerness o find a well-groundednswer o the questionsproposed o them,demonstrateshat heyshare conceptionf learning-inLeont'ev's1975/1977)words, they share a particular efinitionof the learning"activity"-as a
self-directedrocessmediated y culturalools andbygroup-distributedction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A previousItalianversionof this articleappearedn 1993 in the bookLa
Condivisione Della Conoscenza [Shared Knowledge]. (C. Pontecorvo, Ed.).Florence:LaNuovaItalia.
Thepreparationf thisarticlewassupported ya grant f the ItalianMinistryof Universityand of Scientific and TechnologicalResearch(60%, Rome
University) or a researchprojecton "Mediationalmeans and interactivemodalitiesn competence cquisition."
REFERENCES
Bloch, M. (1949). Apologie pour l'histoire ou mitier d'historien [Apology for history or the trade
of a historian].Paris:Colin.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar,A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learningand individualknowledge
acquisition.In L. B. Resnick(Ed.),Knowing, earning,and instruction:Essays in honor of Robert
Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Bruner,J. S. (1986). Actualminds,possible worlds. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.Bruner,J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning:Four lectureson mind and culture.Cambridge,MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Castiglia,D., Pontecorvo, C., & Zucchermaglio,C. (1983). Discorso e ragionamentoscientifico in
classe [Discourseand scientific reasoningin class]. Scuola e Cittc, 17, 371-387.
Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookof research on
teaching(3rd ed., pp. 4-91). New York:Macmillan.
Clancey,W. (1990, October).How shouldexpert systemtechnologybe applied or education?Paper
presentedat the NATO Workshopon Intelligent TutoringSystems, Sintra,Portugal.
Cole, M. (1990). Culturalpsychology:A once andfuturediscipline?In J. J. Berman Ed.),Nebraska
Symposiumon Motivation 1989: Cross-culturalperspectives (pp. 279-335). Lincoln: University
of NebraskaPress.Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship.Teaching the crafts
of reading, writingand mathematics. n L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, earning, and instruction:
Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,
Inc.
Ducrot,O. (1980).Les echellesargumentativesArgumentativecales].Paris:Les Editions du Minuit.
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 31/32
394 PONTECORVOAND GIRARDET
Edwards,D., & Mercer,N. (1987). Commonknowledge:Thedevelopmentof understandingn the
classroom. London:Methuen.
Gardiner,P. (1961). The natureof historicalexplanation.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress.
Girardet,H. (1991). Spiegare fenomenistorici[Explaininghistoricalphenomena]. nC. Pontecorvo,A. M. Ajello, & C.Zucchermaglio Eds.),Discutendosi impara:Interazione ociale e conoscenza
(pp. 201-218). Rome:La Nuova ItaliaScientifica.
Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learningtheory and the studyof instruction.Annual Review of
Psychology,40, 631-666.
Grice,H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. nP. Cole & I. L. Morgan Eds.),Syntaxand semantics:
Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic.
Leont'ev,A. N. (1975). Problemidello sviluppopsichico [Problemsof psychicaldevelopment](S. A.
Boclone & V. Boclone, Trans.).Rome: EditoriRiuniti.(Originalworkpublished1959)
Leont'ev, A. N. (1977). Attivit6,coscienza,personalith[Activity,consciousness,personality] M. S.
Veggetti, Trans.).Florence:GiuntiBarbera. Originalwork published1975)Mehan,M. (1979). Learninglessons. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Newman, D., Griffin,P., & Cole, M. (1989). The constructionzone: Working or cognitive changein school. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Olson, D. R. (1986). The cognitive consequencesof literacy.CanadianPsychology,27, 109-121.
Orsolini, M., & Pontecorvo,C. (1992). Children's talk in classroom discussion. Cognition and
Instruction,9, 113-136.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca,L. (1958). Traiti de l'argumentation:La nouvelle rhitorique
[Essay on argumentation: he new rhetoric].Paris: Presses Universitairesde France.
Pontecorvo,C. (1986). Interazionedi gruppoe conoscenza: Processi e ruoli [Group nteractionand
knowledge:Processes androles]. Etd Evolutiva,24, 85-95.Pontecorvo,C. (1987). Discussing for reasoning:The role of argument n knowledgeconstruction.
In E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks,R. Parmentier,& P. Span (Eds.), Learningand instruction:A
publication of the EuropeanAssociationfor Research on Learningand Instruction Vol. 1, pp.
71-82). Oxford,England/Leuven,Belgium:Leuven UniversityPress.
Pontecorvo,C. (1990). Social context, semiotic mediationand forms of discourse in constructing
knowledgeat school. In H. Mandl,E. De Corte,N. Bennett,& H. Friederich Eds.),Learningand
instruction:A publicationof the EuropeanAssociation or Research on Learningand Instruction
(Vol. 2, pp. 1-27). Oxford,England:Pergamon.
Pontecorvo,C. (1993). Social interaction ndknowledgeacquisition.EducationalPsychologyReview,
5, 293-310.
Pontecorvo, C., & Orsolini,M. (1989, April). Discussing and explaininga story at school. Paper
presentedat the meetingof the Society for Researchon Child Development,KansasCity.
Pontecorvo,C., & Orsolini,M. (1992). Analyzinga literacydiscoursepractice rom anactivity-theory
perspective. Infanciay Aprendizaje,58, 125-141.
Pontecorvo,C., & Zucchermaglio,C. (1989, September).Scientificreasoningand cultural mediation.
Paper presented at the meeting of the EuropeanAssociation for Research on Learning and
Instruction,Madrid.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard,R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Toulmin,S. (1958). The uses of argument.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Von Wright,G. (1971). Explanationand understanding. thaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.
Voss, J. F. (1987). Learningand transferin subject-matter earning:A problem-solvingmodel.
InternationalJournalof EducationalResearch, 11, 607-622.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1974). Storia dello sviluppo delle funzioni psichiche superiori [History of the
development of the higher psychic functions] (M. S. Veggetti, Ed. and Trans.). Florence:
Giunti-Barbera.Originalwork published1960)
This content downloaded from 152.74.16.35 on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:03:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/30/2019 Arguing and Reasoning in Understanding Historical Topics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arguing-and-reasoning-in-understanding-historical-topics 32/32
ARGUING ON HISTORICALTOPICS 395
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The developmentof higher psychological processes (V.
John-Steiner,E. Souberman,M. Cole, & S. Scribner,Eds. andTrans.).Cambridge,MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1990). Pensiero e linguaggio [Thoughtandlanguage](L. Mecacci,Ed. andTrans.).Bari, Italy:Laterza. Originalwork published 1934)
Wertsch,J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Sovietpsychology. Armonk,NY: Sharpe.
Wertsch,J. V. (1985a). Culture,communication, nd cognition: Vygotskian erspectives.Cambridge,
England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985b). Vygotskyand the social formation of mind. Cambridge,MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Wertsch,J. V. (1988, September).The problemof meaningin a socioculturalapproach o mind. In
TheoreticalAdvances in the Studyof Cognition.Lectureseries, Universityof Calgary,Calgary,Canada.
Wertsch,J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. (1984). The creation of context in joint problemsolving. In
B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.),Everydaycognition:Its development n social context(pp. 151-171).
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Wertsch,J. V., & Sammarco,J. G. (1985). Social precursorso individualcognitivefunctioning:The
problemof units of analysis.In R. A. Hinde,A.-N. Perret-Clermont,& J. Stevenson-Hinde Eds.),
Social relationshipsand cognitivedevelopment pp. 276-291). Oxford,England:Clarendon.