Learning to modalize is learning to reason

Abstract

This exploratory case study examines the interplay between epistemic modalizations and children’s argumentation from a language acquisition perspective. Two (pre)adolescents’ written argumentative texts and recordings of oral decision tasks (parent–child dyads) across four years (grades 6 to 9) present the basis of the longitudinal case study. Repertoires of epistemic modalizations drawn on in written and oral argumentation are described; these are related to overall argumentative structures of the texts as well as to interactive patterns of oral reasoning. Findings show that the occurrence of epistemic modalizations systematically coincides with more elaborated argumentative structures that deal with counter-claims and alternative evidence. In addition, oral reasoning seems to function as an arena for discovering and practicing epistemic modalizations and their potential for constructing two-sided argumentation, and pave the way for a transfer into written communication.