Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments

Written Communication Jul 2003

Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments

Selma Leitão Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

Abstract

This article investigates children's evaluation/selection of ideas in writing-related tasks. The critical dimension being considered was to what extent the communicative goal that defines argumentation establishes basic criteria with which children decide whether to include counterargument in a text. Data analysis focused on participants' decisions and, most important, the rationales they present for their decisions. Two constraints seem to drive evaluation/selection processes. First, the content constraint, whereby a writer focuses on agreement with the idea itself; second, the rhetorical constraint, defined as a writer's perception of an idea's value in increasing the acceptability of his or her point of view. Counterargumentation must be perceived as a valuable rhetorical strategy if specific counterarguments are to be incorporated into a text; otherwise, counterargumentation remains part of the process of selection/evaluation without becoming explicit in the product of such a process—the text.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2003-07-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088303257507
Open Access: Closed
Topics: argument

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

Song et al. (2026)

Exploring the Relationship Between Plan Features and Argument Essay Performance

Written Communication
Ehrlich et al. (2025)

The Structure of Argumentative Texts Written by Hebrew Speaking Children in Pri…

Written Communication
Anderson et al. (2017)

Seeing Academically Marginalized Students’ Multimodal Designs From a Position o…

Written Communication

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 18 works outside this index ↓

10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279

↗
Coirier, P., Andriessen, J. & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumenta…

↗
10.1007/BF00180724

↗
Feilke, H. (1996). From syntactical to textual strategies of argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 197-212.

↗
Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K. & Brown, C. A. (1998). “You're going to want to find out …

↗
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin, Germany: Foris.

↗
10.1007/BF03172821

↗
10.1080/01638539409544891

↗
Golder, C. & Coirier, P. (1996). The production and recognition of typological markers. Argumentation, 10, 271-282.

↗
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

↗
10.1159/000022695

↗
10.1590/S0102-79722000000300004

↗
Simon, H. A (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.

↗
Stein, N. L., Bernas, R. S. & Calicchia, D. J. (1996). Conflict talk: Understanding and resolving arguments. …

↗
10.1007/BF00710664

↗
Stein, N. L. & Miller, C. A. (1993b). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts…

↗
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.

↗
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht, Holla…

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 58 View in citation network →