The papers presented in this issue appear, at first glance, to reflect very heterogeneous points of view, and to rely on very different methods: it could seem artificial to put them together with the motive that they all study, in some way, the development of certain behaviors in children which can be related to one meaning of the word "Argumentation". To this objection we answer, first, that we have no intention of harmonizing by force things which appear to be radically different, and we have to take a domain of research as it is, with its own contradictions. Secondly, and in spite of these remarks, we think that the studies presented here in fact manifest a real continuity as far as development is concerned. These go from Ann Eisenberg's study of the emergence of (verbal) patterns of arguing, to linguistic-oriented studies, like the research of Dominique Bassano and Christian Champaud on the processing of some categories of argumentative forms by children. The other two studies (the one by Max Miller, and the one by Eric Esperet and his colleagues) seem to be at some intermediate positions, from a developmental point of view. Of course, this claim about such a continuity does not exclude theoretical pluralism, nor methodological divergence, and this is obvious.
The first paper, by Ann Eisenberg of the University of Texas at San Antonio, is prototypical of an important series by the author and Catherine Garvey of American studies which focus on the very beginning of argumentative behavior in children (Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981; Garvey, 1984; Garvey and Eisenberg, 1986, etc.). These investigations emphasize the ontogenetic evolution in the child from "natural" or primary responses to opposition (like crying, etc.), to more "rational" ways of arguing, at the same time that his ability to express himself verbally increases. Quoting Ann Eisenberg, (infra): "at the same time the child is learning to use language to ask, to inform, and request, he also begins to argue." We have to specify here that, when the author uses the word "argument", she defines an argument as "occurring any time one individually verbally states his opposition to another individual's statement, request or action." Rational argumentation is only related to one kind of argument, the one in which "participants support their position with evidence and work towards reconciliation or compromise" (Garvey, 1984).
According to Ann Eisenberg (cf. infra, p. 114), "Piaget (1959) argues that arguments among peers place children in a situation where the comparison of divergent viewpoints is inevitable." This remark can Argumentation 1 (1987) 109-111.