Institut des sciences du langage et de la communication
T R A V A U X N E U C H Â T E L O I S D E L I N G U I S T I Q U E
S. Gonzalez, K. Skogmyr Marian, L. Volpin, F. Gfeller, L. Bietti & A. Bangerter (éds.)
Conference proceedings of the young researchers conference of the center
for research on social interactions (CRIS-YR)
La revue TRANEL fonctionne sur le principe de la révision par les pairs. Les propositions de numéros thématiques qui sont soumises au coordinateur sont d'abord évaluées de manière globale par le comité scientifique. Si un projet est accepté, chaque contribution est transmise pour relecture à deux spécialistes indépendants, qui peuvent demander des amendements.
La revue se réserve le droit de refuser la publication d'un article qui, même après révision, serait jugé de qualité scientifique insuffisante par les experts.
Responsables de la revue
Claudia Ricci email: claudia.ricci@unine.ch
Mélanie Sandoz email: melanie.sandoz@unine.ch
Klara Skogmyr Marian email: klara.skogmyr@unine.ch
Comité scientifique de la revue
Marie-José Béguelin, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Louis de Saussure, Geneviève de Weck, Marion Fossard, Corinne Rossari, Federica Diémoz, Martin Hilpert, Hélène Carles, Juan Pedro Sánchez Méndez, Katrin Skoruppa et Elena Smirnova (Université de Neuchâtel)
Secrétariat de rédaction
Florence Waelchli, Revue Tranel, Institut des sciences du langage et de la communication, Université de Neuchâtel, Rue Pierre-à-Mazel 7, CH-2000 Neuchâtel
Les anciens numéros sont également en accès libre (archive ouverte / open access) dans la bibliothèque numérique suisse romande Rero doc. Voir rubrique "Revues":
http://doc.rero.ch/collection/JOURNAL?In=fr
© Institut des sciences du langage et de la communication, Université de Neuchâtel, 2018 Tous droits réservés
ISSN 2504-205X
Table des matières
Fabienne GFELLER, Sylvia GONZALEZ, Klara SKOGMYR MARIAN &
Letizia VOLPIN
Avant-propos ... 1-6
Sara GRECO
Designing dialogue: argumentation as conflict
management in social interaction ... 7-15
Rebecca G. SCHÄR
On the negotiation of the issue in discussions among
young children and their parents ... 17-25
Klara SKOGMYR MARIAN
"Qu'est-ce que maman dit?": l'accomplissement des
directives en français L2 par un jeune homme au pair ... 27-38
Cécile PETITJEAN
Le pouvoir des rires: des interactions en face à face aux
conversations par texto ... 39-50
Elizaveta CHERNYSHOVA
Explicitation sequences in conversation: some
considerations on formulations, candidate inferences
and grounding ... 51-58
Christina BRANDENBERGER & Christoph HOTTIGER Sharing perception when using hands-on exhibits in
science centres: the case of vocal depiction ... 59-68
Klaus ZUBERBÜHLER
Intentional communication in primates ... 69-75
Daniel DUKES
Apprentissage social affectif et appréciation de l'émotion: structuration des interactions socio-
émotionnelles ... 77-84
Sharing emotions impacts computer-supported
collaborative processes: effect of an emotion awareness
tool ... 85-96
Hazbi AVDIJI & Stéphanie MISSONIER
A design approach to team coordination ... 97-106
Ottilie TILSTON & Gillian SANDSTROM
Is the power of weak ties universal? A cross-cultural comparison of social interaction in Argentina and
Canada ... 107-112
Fan HUA
Art versus amusement: what do photos allow people to
do? ... 113-119
Michèle GROSSEN
Interaction ou inter-actions? Deux conceptions de la
notion d'interaction ... 121-128
Alain PERUSSET
Comment peut-on formaliser une pratique? Une
approche sémiotique ... 129-135 Adresses des auteurs ... 137-138
Introduction
Fabienne GFELLER1, Sylvia GONZALEZ2, Klara SKOGMYR MARIAN3 & Letizia VOLPIN3
1 Institute of psychology and education, University of Neuchâtel
2 Institute of work and organizational psychology, University of Neuchâtel
3 Institute of language sciences and communication, University of Neuchâtel
On February 16-17, 2017, the first Young Researchers conference of the Centre for Research on Social Interactions (CRSI-YR) was held at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland. The conference brought together scholars from various academic fields and different levels of research experience with a shared interest for the study of social interaction. The program included invited talks and keynote presentations given by more advanced researchers, as well as oral and poster presentations primarily authored by young researchers. In line with the general ideas of the Centre for Research on Social Interactions1, the CRSI- YR conference aimed at promoting interdisciplinary dialogue. The event thus provided researchers at the beginning of their academic career with a concrete opportunity to discover and discuss innovative research topics and methodologies, to partake in scientific debates from various strands of social interaction research, and to benefit from the experience of more advanced researchers. Since a detailed report of the conference has been presented elsewhere2, we will not provide more details here than specifying that the complete list of the 36 (oral and poster) presentations of the conference can be found in the aforementioned publication.
This TRANEL issue offers a glimpse into the richness of the exchange that took place during the CRSI-YR conference by publishing a subset of the presented papers in the form of short articles. In line with the broad theme of the conference, the articles included in the issue address a diverse set of activities, situations and contexts in which social interactions occur. Sending a message filled with emoticons, going to the museum with a friend, asking for another piece of cake, warning one's group members of a danger, arguing in an attempt to
1 The Centre for Research on Social Interactions (CRSI) was founded in 2014 as a consortium of researchers from different disciplines working on issues related to interpersonal interaction processes, in order to support research on these issues and to foster interdisciplinary collaboration.
2 Volpin, L., Skogmyr Marian, K., Gfeller, F., Gonzalez, S., & Bangerter, A. (2017): Young researchers conference of the Centre for Research on Social Interactions. Conference Report.
In: Studies in Communication Sciences, 17(2), 263-270. Available at: https://doi.org/
10.24434/j.scoms.2017.02.012.
solve a conflict - these are only a few examples of situations investigated by the conference presenters that illustrate the pervasive nature of social interaction in our daily lives. In studying these situations, researchers examine a wide range of questions such as: What makes these interactional encounters possible?
How are they mediated, and notably what is the impact of new technologies?
What are the skills and competences involved in social encounters and how do they develop? What is the role of emotions in all this? The complexity of social interaction makes this phenomenon an intrinsically multidisciplinary object of study. Thus, this TRANEL issue groups contributions from researchers working in such varied fields as linguistics, psychology, sociology, biology, and many more.
Whilst these researchers all share an interest for social interaction, it is important to note that the ways of understanding and studying this phenomenon – the theoretical, methodological and epistemological approaches used – are diverse and differently linked to the various disciplines. In the present issue, we have tried to organize the contributions according to the nature of the processes studied by the authors, in an attempt to highlight the diversity of study objects.
Indeed, some of these contributions focus on an understanding of interactional processes observably manifested at the surface level of social interaction. In this first group of studies, we mainly find research from the field of conversation analysis and from the study of argumentation. Another set of papers comes from a more cognitive research tradition, and primarily addresses the cognitive and emotional skills involved in social interaction. One author draws on socio-cultural psychology and focuses on artefacts and the psychological processes they arouse. Finally, on a more conceptual level, two articles provide reflections about the conceptual and epistemological questions involved in research on social interaction. In what follows, we summarize the contributions in the order in which they appear in the issue, reflecting the different foci of study mentioned above.
In a situation of disagreement, conflict escalation is common but not inevitable.
Sara Greco's paper seeks to demonstrate how important the argumentative micro-analysis of conflict resolution is to maintain and reinvigorate relationships in the everyday life of individuals. In order to explore how to deal with disagreement in argumentative dialogue, Greco presents people's discursive argumentative practices in social interaction, showing and developing the main features of argumentative dialogue (e.g. decentration, critical attitude of all parties, etc.) as well as the concept of communication design. She finally discusses the impact of dispute mediators on the partaking in argumentative dialogue.
Also situated in the vast field of argumentation studies, Rebecca G. Schär's contribution aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the process of issue negotiation in argumentative discussions between children and their parents. To
do so, Schär analyzes the emergence and the negotiation of an issue in a case where the issue is not completely shared between the participants of the argumentative discussion. The data collected for this study are naturally occurring discussions in everyday family interaction and the analysis is conducted based on the pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion. The results, demonstrating the child's ability to negotiate the issue throughout the emergence of different arguments, contribute to a better understanding of negotiation processes in child-adult interaction.
Also focusing on child-adult interaction, Klara Skogmyr Marian's conversation analytic study investigates the ability of a young au pair and second language (L2) speaker of French to give directives to the host family children in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The analysis is based on a corpus of 79 sequences of directives and their responses, and documents changes in the L2 speaker's interactional methods for accomplishing these directives during the four-month stay. Such changes include for example an increased ability to adapt the methods to the local circumstances of the situation. The results are discussed in terms of the speaker's development of L2 interactional competences.
In a similar epistemological and methodological vein as the previous contribution, Cécile Petitjean's article focuses on the role of laughter in text- based and face-to-face institutional interaction. The paper provides an overview of a number of studies done by the author and her colleagues on this topic.
Some of these studies take a purely qualitative conversation analytic approach;
others combine this framework with quantitative analyses. The studies demonstrate how participants use laughter in a highly coordinated manner to accomplish particular social actions in various types of interaction. Specifically, Petitjean shows how laughter can be used to manage interactional trouble for example in the classroom or in a speech therapy session. Based on the cumulative evidence from the different studies, the author argues that laughter constitutes an integral part of speakers' interactional competences.
Another practice that may also be considered in terms of interactional competences is people's ways of making things explicit in interaction. This is the focus of Elizaveta Chernyshova's conversation analytic study. She examines two types of practices used in these 'explicitation sequences': formulations, and candidate inferences. Drawing on ordinary conversation in French, the author demonstrates a difference in usage between the two types of practices. While both formulations and candidate inferences display an inference based on what was said prior in the conversation, only the latter practice adds new informational content, or 'articulates the unsaid', in the author's words.
Chernyshova discusses these observations in terms of information processing and common ground, and comments on the interactional import of these different practices on topic development.
Even if the previous conversation analytic contributions have all, to some extent, considered other semiotic resources than merely verbal ones, Christina Brandenberger and Christoph Hottiger's research has a more clearly defined interest in multimodality. Their paper focuses on the multimodal practices used by participants in interaction to share sensory perceptions with their co- participants. The authors analyze a short sequence taking place between two visitors at a science center, in which one of the visitors vocally depicts her tactile experiences in manipulating an exhibit. The study relies on both video recordings and eye-tracking data of the interaction. The analysis demonstrates the finely coordinated way in which language, tactile perception, proprioception, and vision, are used by the participant in order to make her experience available to the co-participant. The study thus highlights the important role of different semiotic resources in the way we communicate with each other and the necessity of investigating these issues from a holistic perspective.
The following contributions introduce a shift in perspective, with a focus that is more centered on the socio-cognitive skills underlying interactional phenomena.
One of the main current scientific interests concerns questions relating to evolutionary origins of cognitive abilities, such as those relating to language.
Starting from well-established results suggesting the presence of basic referential capacity in animal communication, Klaus Zuberbühler presents a set of studies on the communication of great apes. Based on Dennett's intentional stance's theoretical framework used to assess animal behavior in relation to the levels of intentionality present in human communication, the author highlights that monkeys do not use vocal or gestural signals automatically, but rather in an intentional, social and goal-oriented way. But although great apes are able to adapt to a recipient and seem to understand that a signal refers to something specific, Zuberbühler nevertheless concludes that the ability of shared intentionality seems to be exclusively human.
Daniel Dukes' paper introduces a new concept called emotional social learning that takes into account social context in the emotional interpretation of others.
According to Dukes, it is this cognitive structure that allows the individual to acquire knowledge about the world (e.g., physical objects, concepts). In the paper, the author identifies the various processes implicated in this structure, and describes its functioning as mainly based on the appraisal of others' feelings. Through various experiments, he shows that emotion recognition is not only based on emotional facial expression. Instead he argues that the appraisal process, which he calls emotion appreciation, incorporates both emotional and contextual information. Based on these findings, Dukes encourages researchers in affective sciences to take into account contextual information (e.g., body language and gestures) in their studies.
Based on the consensus that emotions play a central role in successful collaboration, Sunny Avry and Gaëlle Molinari have tested Emotion
Awareness Tools (EATs) as a technological solution to access emotional cues in remote computer-supported collaboration. The authors used an inter-group design (EATs group vs. control group) to assess the effect of the EATs on the verbal interactions of dyads performing a collaborative computer-mediated task and by taking into account the gender variable. Analyzing collaborative units from verbal interaction, the authors show that EATs had a positive effect on the management of relational aspects (on the mutual modelling of emotions) and on the cognitive dimensions of collaboration. Their results also show different trends between women and men in the way they used relational and problem- solving processes.
Hazbi Avdiji and Stéphanie Missonier present the use of a different tool, the Team Alignment Map (TAM), to understand how teammates coordinate in uncertain and changing situations such as innovation projects. The authors have developed this collective tool on the basis of a theory assimilating language as a joint activity and a concept of joint inquiry. The TAM, which is in the form of a poster containing columns related to the theoretical postulates, was evaluated in an ecological situation using an approach to design science research and semi-directed interviews with teammates. Through a thematic analysis, the authors highlight the effectiveness of the device and show for example that it allows team members to better coordinate and adapt to changing situations.
Ottilie Tilston and Gillian Sandstrom's contribution also articulates emotions and intragroup relations, but with an interest in larger groups than the previous paper. Starting from the results of a previous study in a Canadian context showing that strong and weak ties have an impact on our subjective wellbeing and sense of belonging to a community, the authors examine the link between the cultural context and the type of ties in an attempt to better understand the universality of the "weak tie effect". Relying on self-report data, they analyze the number and nature of social encounters experienced by 40 Latin American participants, considered as living in a collectivist non-Western culture.
Preliminary results suggest that the Latin American sample had more weak tie interactions than the Canadian sample of the previous study, but a similar number of interactions per day. The authors discuss these results in terms of the relationship between the sense of community of Latinos and their weak tie interactions.
Fan Hua's paper certainly occupies a particular place in this special issue, as this author focuses more on objects (photographs) than directly on interactions between human beings. Drawing on Vygotsky's work on art, she proposes a socio-cultural psychological approach of the making and use of photography.
Analyzing the work of a photographer as well as considering digital photos taken by smartphones and portable cameras, she examines the psychological processes involved in art experiences in contrast to those in amusement. This discussion contributes to the understanding of social interaction by highlighting
the presence of artefacts, such as art works, in social dynamics. These objects are used by people as mediums allowing them to act both on themselves and on others, as, according to Vygotsky, art is a mean to participate in the shaping of society and to orient its evolution.
Now, it is sometimes necessary to take a step back and examine the concepts and categories we use in order to conduct research with a solid epistemological and conceptual background. The two following papers both contribute to this kind of reflexive work. Through the careful examination of different understandings of what interaction actually is, Michèle Grossen contributes to a conceptual clarification of the notion of "interaction". She proposes a distinction between interactions apprehended as a sequence of several actions acting one upon each other and interactions understood as one single action created by several actors. She then highlights the implications of these definitions on the theoretical and methodological levels, which she illustrates with the example of a study conducted in schools. Doing this, she draws our attention to the epistemological level of research and underlines the concrete consequences epistemological choices have in the research process.
While the previous contribution is a reflection by a social psychologist on the uses of the notion of interaction in psychology and other social sciences, Alain Perusset draws on semiotics to propose a functional conceptualization of practices. The formalization he presents is based on the distinction between the different actants (operator, operatio, operans and operandum) which are part of any practice. Perusset then discusses different types of existential attitudes, before highlighting the presence of what he calls a transcendental authority, which characterizes the commitment in the practice. The categories of this formalization, he argues, provide a useful analytical tool for social scientists who work on interactional practices.
Finally, before leaving you to read the articles in this issue, we would like to thank the CRSI and the University of Neuchâtel for making the CRSI-YR conference possible, the TRANEL committee for supporting the creation of this issue, the colleagues who participated in the review process, all participants at the conference, and in particular the contributors to this issue, who filled the frame that we set out for them with engaging content.
Designing dialogue: Argumentation as conflict management in social interaction
1Sara GRECO
USI – Università della Svizzera italiana
The escalation of disagreement into overt conflict in social interaction can be avoided, if disagreement is managed through argumentative dialogue. This paper explores the characteristics of argumentative dialogue and presents the role of third parties who design spaces for others' dialogue. After discussing the prototypical example of dispute mediators, this contribution considers other informal third parties who have a similar role. This opens up a new perspective on informal third parties who work as designers of dialogue and build spaces to manage disagreement in social interaction.
1. Introduction
There is a widespread feeling in our society that we have arrived at an era of political and social turmoil, in which political engagement seems more influenced by polemical fighting than by collaboration and reasonable dialogue.
Recent confused political campaigns followed by confusing votes (such as the Brexit and the 2016 US election, to name but two) exacerbate that feeling and raise an urgent question: in the face of different ideas and positions, is it still possible to discuss and debate in a reasonable way? Is there any possibility of approaching differences through dialogue, considering opposing positions, and carefully weighing arguments on both sides? Or are we bound to entrench polarised positions, every time we voice a disagreement?
Similarly, at a micro-level, one might feel disheartened when disagreement occurs in interpersonal social interactions. Any time two persons disagree, as will happen in any relationship, inevitably the question arises: will that relationship founder as a consequence of the disagreement?
It is evident that any disagreement has the potential to escalate into overt or even violent conflict. Metaphors such as the conflict ladder (Glasl 2004) have been employed to describe the phenomenon of a simple misunderstanding or difference of opinion deteriorating into hostile interpersonal conflict (Greco Morasso 2011); in some cases, this can even turn into intractable conflict (Bar- Tal 2013).
1 I have adopted the metaphor of design-architecture as applied to communication and dialogue from Aakhus (2007), Jackson (2015a, 2015b), Perret-Clermont (2015).
This paper argues that the escalation of disagreement into conflict is neither necessary nor inevitable. If we want to maintain and reinvigorate social relationships, it is crucial to understand how to deal with disagreement through dialogue. Creating a space for argumentative dialogue helps solve disagreement in a reasonable fashion, promotes quality communication in social interaction and restores broken relationships. In this sense, argumentation offers a means of reasonably managing disagreement in social interaction.
2. Argumentative dialogue
In this paper, argumentation is seen as a social and dialogic process of discussion. From this perspective, an ideal argumentative discussion is aimed at the resolution of a difference of opinion between individuals (van Eemeren &
Grootendorst 1984). Resolving a difference, in this model, means making a well- founded decision based on the merits of the case, having taken into account the viewpoints and arguments of all parties in an ideally reasonable dialogue2. In this, argumentation can be seen as an alternative to the escalation of conflict and a means of managing disagreement in social interaction.
Not every type of dialogue produces this effect; it is unique to an argumentative dialogue. The main features of argumentative dialogue are set out briefly below.
Firstly, each party must accept that his or her position on a given subject is not the only possible one; and that there might be alternative positions. This capacity to accept that people have different perspectives is called decentration (cf. the discussion in Muller Mirza et al. 2009). Accepting that there might be different viewpoints on a subject does not imply acceptance of relativism.
Argumentative dialogue is best understood within the framework of a moderate socio-constructivism; this position acknowledges that reality is always complex and, therefore, facts are always interpreted and, to some extent, co-constructed through social interaction. Particularly in the case of conflict, it might be that different parties see different aspects of a complex problem, as they experience their own individual, differing stories of the conflict and, more often than not,
2 This represents the description of an ideal argumentative discussion. Argumentation is seen as a constellation of speech acts functional to the resolution of a difference of opinion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004). This does not mean that argumentative dialogue always results in a complete resolution of the difference; nor do parties always behave in a reasonable way. Normative models of argumentation, such as the one proposed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004), offer a blueprint of how argumentation should unfold if parties want to solve their disagreement on its merits. Real-life discussions can be compared to this ideal standard, in order to understand how much they have been based on argumentation, and how much they were conducive to the resolution of a difference of opinion. I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.
simply ignore certain aspects of the other's story. This explains why different viewpoints emerge.
Secondly, the difference of opinion is not seen as a problem in argumentation;
on the contrary, differences of opinion are not the endpoint but the starting point of dialogue. Some authors speak of collaborative argumentation to indicate a
"reasoned collective handling of disagreement" (Schwarz & Baker 2017: 134, footnote 1): in this view, argumentative dialogue is a means of reaching a common reasoned resolution of disagreement. Ideally, in argumentative dialogue, the difference is a positive; and the other person, who brings a different (contradictory) perspective, is a resource. Indeed, differences potentially allow the parties involved to take a step forward in cognitive and relational terms (see the studies on the phenomenon of socio-cognitive conflict;
in particular, Carugati & Perret-Clermont 2015).
Thirdly, argumentative dialogue entails that all parties adopt a critical attitude.
This means that parties try to find a reasonable solution to their disagreement.
The adjective reasonable, in this context, assumes a meaning broader than merely rational: in complex decision-making processes, such as those typical of social interaction, there are many aspects to be pondered with a nuanced attitude. Reasonableness in argumentation includes taking into account the parties as human beings – people, with emotions and feelings – in the bigger picture of a decision. But being reasonable in argumentation also means being critical and evaluating all positions, considering all relevant aspects. Agreement in argumentative dialogue is achieved through the resolution of a difference of opinion on the merits of the case (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984) rather than through manipulation, deception or violence. Consequently, participants will subject their opinions to critical scrutiny and put forward arguments to support their positions rather than merely enunciating those positions; and they will be ready to change their opinion, if persuaded to do so.
Approaching disagreement through argumentation, i.e. in a critical way, is the only way to really resolve it. When a resolution is reached through other means – for example, if a boss (or a teacher!) imposes a decision without explaining it, or if someone surreptitiously coerces someone else into conceding a point by means of threats – disagreement will remain. Even if the parties settle the specific problem, if the disagreement has not been tackled through reasonable dialogue, it will persist. In fact, whoever has been forced into doing something, or has been deceived, will not be persuaded to accept the other's position3. In the long run, a relationship in which disagreement is papered over or hidden but never quite resolved will inevitably deteriorate. Parties will hold on to a tacit disappointment; this is a heavy burden for social relationships and one that
3 In this sense, compliance with a proposal is not a measure of its reasonableness.
erodes trust. By contrast, research on conflict resolution has proven that solutions achieved in mediation, because they take the parties' interests into account, are more durable (see for example Mitchell 2003; Kelman 2009: 75).
It is worth noting that the critical attitude promoted through argumentative dialogue is not an abstract, cognitive and "cold" solution, as opposed to a nuanced appreciation of human relationships. On the contrary, when the resolution of a difference of opinion happens through argumentative dialogue, the human relationship between the parties will improve (Bush & Folger 1994):
parties, in fact, will have learnt how to deal with differences and how to solve problems through reasonable discussion (Greco Morasso 2011). Kressel (2006:
730) describes the ameliorative impact of mediation (on relationships), which has been proven in different fields. For example, he refers to studies in environmental mediation, in which respondents report "improvements in their capacity to discuss controversial issues, to work more productively with the others, and to resolve differences more easily" (Dukes 2004, q.td in Kressel 2006: 730). Comparable findings are reported in labour disputes and divorce mediation (see the discussion in Kressel 2006: 730)4.
Ultimately, argumentative dialogue allows for relationships to become more solid. This is reflected in some dialogue-based approaches to conflict resolution being described as transformative approaches (see Folger & Bush 1994). These approaches acknowledge that learning how to solve disagreement through dialogue means not only solving one specific problem, but improving the way of approaching problems in general; and, thus, improving the human relationships that have been affected by those problems. As a consequence, parties feel more confident and able to disagree in a constructive way without fear of losing their relationships with their opponents (be they spouses, friends, colleagues, or others).
3. Designing spaces for argumentative dialogues
In many situations and contexts, argumentative dialogues of the type described in section 2 arise naturally as part of conversations (see for example Schär &
Greco 2016). Nonetheless, there are cases where parties are not able to engage in an argumentative discussion for a variety of reasons. For example, their common starting points might be too limited; or their disagreement might be too strong or too escalated for them to handle by themselves. In these cases, a well- designed intervention by a third party who designs a space for argumentative
4 These positive results for relationships have been proven despite the fact that it is not easy to find indicators to measure mediation outcomes, as these might involve different aspects in the short and long term (see the discussion in Herrman, Hollett & Gale 2006: 46-47).
dialogue can help. The concept of communication design in argumentation has recently attracted scholarly attention (Aakhus 2007; Jackson 2015a, b). In the words of Jackson (2015: 227), "a design perspective suggests that societies try out ideas about how to reach conclusions and agreements embodying them in techniques and technical systems". Jackson (2015a) notes that every argumentative setting or practice is partially the result of design hypotheses.
When these no longer fit the ecology of a context, "it is also possible to engage in theoretically motivated redesign of argumentation" (Jackson 2015b: 244). The design perspective, we might say, has the merit of showing that it is not a given that argumentative dialogue will develop in a healthy way: more often than not, spaces for dialogue are (at least partially) designed. Therefore, it is possible to reflect on how functional they are and how they can be improved.
Similarly, studies in socio-cultural psychology have made the case for the necessity of designing safe spaces for social interaction and dialogue. In order to clarify this concept, Perret-Clermont (2015) introduces the metaphor of the
"architecture of social relationships": third parties build spaces to improve socio- cognitive dialogical exchanges in social interaction. Grossen & Perret-Clermont (1992: 288) speak of these third parties in terms of being the "guardians" of safe spaces for thinking and social interaction.
3.1 Mediators as architects of argumentative dialogue
An exemplary case of dialogue design is the work that dispute mediators do in dealing with conflicts without imposing a solution on them. Mediators create a space for argumentative discussion. Discursive and argumentative approaches to dispute mediation have the "value of looking closely at actual talk" (Glenn &
Susskind 2010: 118) and enable us to look at micro-patterns of discourse in interaction (Putnam 2010: 153). These micro-approaches explain how communicative micro-choices made by mediators impact on the construction of a dialogical space for the parties involved.
Research on argumentation in mediation has highlighted various aspects through which a mediator constructs the parties' dialogical space. The first aspect is the management of the issues under discussion (see for example Aakhus 2003). Mediators organise the issues around which the parties' discussion will develop. They rule out discussion that is not conducive to a reasonable solution of the conflict or that will result in an impasse (Aakhus 2003). They lead the parties through an in-depth analysis of their conflict, rejecting unproductive deviations from a resolution-oriented discussion and identifying the issues that lie at the origin of the conflict (Greco Morasso 2011).
In a more advanced phase of mediation, they bring the parties to a discussion about the options for conflict resolution, purposefully shifting the discussion from the origin of the conflict to its resolution (Greco Morasso 2011).
Because of their neutral role, mediators cannot advance argumentation on how to solve the parties' conflict directly. Nevertheless, it has been shown that they often advance argumentation at a meta-level: they use argumentation to convince disputants that the conflict is worth resolving; or persuade reluctant parties to orientate their discussion towards one or several particular issues (Greco Morasso 2011). They use questions and formulations to guide the discussion whilst avoiding direct advocacy for one position or another (van Eemeren et al. 1993). More recent research demonstrates how mediators design the parties' discussion by selecting a zone of initial agreement based on appropriate starting points (van Bijnen, in preparation), which set the stage for the parties' argumentation. Other studies explain how reframing, i.e. modifying the parties' original interpretation of the conflict, is used strategically by mediators within the construction of the parties' argumentative discussion for the resolution of their conflict (Greco 2016; Martinez Soria, in preparation).
The case of mediators is a clear instance of how a third neutral party might intervene in the design of argumentative spaces. All the interventions described above show that the mediator is a non-canonical participant in an argumentative discussion (Greco Morasso 2011) or, in other words, a designer of the others' discussion. As a rule, architects and designers prepare spaces for others to inhabit. In this case, it is a dialogical space that is designed for others to find a solution to their conflict through reasonable dialogue.
3.2 Mediators with no label
Unlike dispute mediators, not all designers of dialogue have a specific label.
There are cases in which the design of the others' discussion for the management of disagreement goes unnoticed. This task is part and parcel of different professional profiles, as for example in the case of teachers, social workers or other facilitators5. Students or other parties will learn to deal with disagreement in a reasonable fashion to the extent that these "mediators without a label" have been able to create dialogical spaces for them to handle their disagreement. For example, through a decades-long research and training programme in the UK, Neil Mercer and colleagues have shown the importance of dialogical spaces in the classroom and other educational contexts (see Dawes, Mercer & Wegerif 2004; Higham 2016; Hennessy et al. 2016). They have proved that a careful design of the rules and contexts for interaction enable what they call exploratory talk (Littleton and Mercer 2013), which is very close to the concept of argumentative dialogue outlined in this paper. The role of the
5 On this point, see Greco, Mehmeti & Perret-Clermont (2017), who suggest the comparison between teachers and dispute mediators as regards their role in constructing argumentative discussions for others.
teacher is fundamental, as he or she is "someone who can use dialogue to orchestrate and foster the development of a community of enquiry in the classroom in which individual students can take a shared, active and reflective role in building their own understanding" (Mercer & Littleton 2007: 74). In a different context, Psaltis, Carretero and Čehajić-Clancy (2017) discuss the role of history education in conflict transformation; amongst other aspects, they explore the role of teachers who guide this process. These findings open new perspectives on the role of informal third parties who work as architects of dialogue.
4. Conclusions and openings
This paper has argued that, in social interaction, there is room for a formal or informal dialogue design operated by third parties who create spaces for others' discussion. Whether created through the work of professional mediators or through the intervention of other facilitators, these spaces ideally allow for the management of disagreement through argumentative dialogue, avoiding escalation into interpersonal conflict. Thus, if well managed, disagreement may contain a positive potential for the development of social interaction.
This paper has taken the role of mediators as a prototype of the design work necessary to create the possibility for others to engage in argumentative dialogue. Although this paper, for reasons of space, has not delved into specific analyses, most of the results presented in sections 3.1 and 3.2 are based on empirical, interaction-based research that takes into account micro-sequences of dialogue, often through a discursive analytical lens. This type of approach permits a nuanced view of the different discursive elements that concretely facilitate the creation of dialogical spaces. In this sense, the research that has been conducted on argumentative dialogue in mediation (section 3.1) could serve as a blueprint for other domains of dialogue design. Indeed, some of the discursive strategies identified in the case of mediators could be of use in understanding how to design dialogical spaces in other social contexts and professional domains.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped improve this manuscript; and to Judy Nagle for language editing.
I would also like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for grant n.
10001C_170004, which supports the project "The inferential dynamics of reframing within dispute mediators' argumentation" (Applicant: S. Greco, PhD researcher: C. Martinez Soria). Some of the recent advances in the research on dispute mediation discussed in this paper have been possible thanks to this support.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aakhus, M. (2003): Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265-290.
Aakhus, M. (2007): Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 112-117.
Bar-Tal, D. (2013): Intractable conflicts. Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).
Bijnen, E., van. (in preparation): Discourse analytical techniques and argumentative strategies employed in informal mediation practices in Swiss organizations. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.
Bush, R. A. B. & Folger, J. P. (1994): The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco (Jossey-Bass).
Carugati, F. & Perret-Clermont, A-N. (2015): Learning and instruction: Social-cognitive perspectives. In J. D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (2nd edition, Vol 13). Oxford (Elsevier), 670-676.
Dawes, L., Mercer, N. & Wegerif, R. (2004, second edition): Thinking together: a programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills. Birmingham (Imaginative Minds).
Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 191-220.
Eemeren, F.H., van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984): Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht (Foris).
Eemeren, F.H., van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004): A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma- dialectical approach. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).
Eemeren, F. H., van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1993): Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
Folger, J. P. & Bush, R. A. B. (1994): Ideology, orientations to conflict, and mediation discourse. In J. P.
Folger & T. S. Jones, (eds.), New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives. Thousand Oaks (Sage), 3-25.
Glasl, F. (2004): Selbsthilfe in Konflikten. Konzepte – Übungen – Praktische Methoden. Stuttgart/Bern (Freies Geistesleben).
Glenn, P., & Susskind, L. (2010): How talk works: Studying negotiation interaction. Negotiation Journal, 26(2), 117-123.
Greco Morasso, S. (2011): Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia (John Benjamins).
Greco, S. (2016): Framing and reframing in dispute mediation: An argumentative perspective. In M.
Danesi & S. Greco (eds), Case studies in Discourse Analysis. Munich (Lincom Europe), 353-379.
Greco, S., Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2017): Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation? A case study. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 193-219.
Grossen, M., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1992) (eds.): L'espace thérapeutique. Cadres et contextes.
Lausanne (Delachaux et Niestlé).
Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Torreblanca, O., Barrera, M.J., Marquez, A.M., García Carrión, R., Maine, F., & Ríos, R.M. (2016): Developing an analytic coding scheme for classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44.
Herrman, M. S., Hollett, N., & Gale, J. (2006): Mediation from beginning to end: A testable model. In M.
S. Herrman (ed.), Handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice. Malden/MA (Blackwell Publishing), 19-78.
Higham, R. (2016): Communication breakdown: How conflict can promote responsible leadership in students. School Leadership and Management, 36(1), 96-112.
Jackson, S. (2015a): Deference, distrust and delegation: Three design hypotheses. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in Argumentation theory. Cham (Springer), 227-243.
Jackson, S. (2015b): Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation, 29, 243- 263.
Kelman, H. C. (2009): Interactive problem solving: Informal mediation by the scholar-practitioner. ZKM – Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 3, 74-79.
Kressel, K. (2006): Mediation revisited. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman & E. C. Marcus (eds.), Handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice (2nd edition). San Francisco (Jossey-Bass), 726-256.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013): Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London (Routledge).
Martinez Soria, C. (in preparation): Reframing as an argumentative competence. PhD dissertation, USI – Università della Svizzera italiana.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007): Dialogue and the development of children's thinking. A sociocultural approach. London/New York (Routledge).
Mitchell, C. (2003): Mediation and the ending of conflicts. In J. Darby & R. M. Ginty (eds.), Contemporary Peacemaking. London (Palgrave Macmillan), 77-86
Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009): Psychological processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. New York (Springer), 67-90.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2015): The architecture of social relationships and thinking spaces for growth.
In C. Psaltis, A. Gillespie & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (eds.), Social relations in human and societal development. New York (Palgrave McMillan), 51-70.
Psaltis, C., Carretero, M., & Čehajić-Clancy, S. (2017): History education and conflict transformation:
Social psychological theories, history teaching and reconciliation. Cham (Palgrave Macmillan).
Putnam, L. (2010): Negotiation & Discourse analysis. Negotiation Journal, 26(2), 145-154.
Schär R., & Greco S. (2016): The emergence of issues in everyday discussions between adults and children. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, SIG 20-26. Ghent (Belgium), 22-24 August 2016.
Schwarz, B. B., & Baker, M. J. (2017): Dialogue, Argumentation and Education: History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).
On the negotiation of the issue in discussions among young children and their parents
Rebecca G. SCHÄR
Università della Svizzera italiana
When analyzing argumentative discussions between young children and adults, it emerged that in some cases, adults and children do not share the same issue at the beginning of an interaction. The present contribution makes a first step in investigating how issues are negotiated among the discussants so that this diverging understanding can be overcome.
To do so, an example from a corpus of everyday discussions in a family is analyzed. For the reconstruction of the argumentation, the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion will be used. Furthermore, the analysis of the implicit contextual-material premises on which the discussants base their reasoning will contribute to a better understanding of the interaction.
1. Introduction
In the literature, children's argumentative skills are discussed from different perspectives (e.g. linguistic, psychological, educational). The existence of young children's argumentative skills is acknowledged throughout the literature.
However, depending on the basis of comparison (i.e. if compared to an adult or a child) these skills are in some cases described as ‘not fully developed' (Golder 1996: 120; see also Rapanta et al. 2013: 488). Nonetheless, when children's argumentation is studied in informal settings, in which the children are given space to discuss, they prove to be competent and clever discussants (see e.g.
Arcidiacono & Bova 2015; Völzing 1982 for children's argumentation in the home). In order to gain an in-depth understanding of young children's contributions to argumentative discussions, the research project "Analysing children's implicit argumentation: reconstruction of procedural and material premises" (ArgImp)1 studies the implicit in children's argumentation.
The present paper was developed within the ArgImp project. It starts from a positive case, in which children actively engage in argumentative discussions.
Its focus lies on the concept of issue in argumentative discussions between young children (from 2 to 6 years of age) and adults. The issue is a central concept in argumentation theory. It describes the subject around which argumentative discussions revolve (Schär & Greco 2018). Studying the issue
1 The ArgImp project is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (contract n. 100019- 156690/1, 2015-2018), Applicants: Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Sara Greco, Antonio Iannaccone, Andrea Rocci.
and its evolution in a discussion furthermore allows gaining insights on how and why a discussion comes into place.
The issue has been studied by several ancient authors, like Aristotle, whereas it has received comparatively little attention in recent times. Plantin (2005) perceives the issue as a question that occurs "par la contradiction discours / contre-discours" (ibid., 57). Argumentation scholar Jean Goodwin (2002) highlights furthermore that the issue is "a more or less determinate object of contention" (ibid., 86). This observation is especially important for the purpose of this paper as it aims to study the negotiation of issues in argumentative discussions among children and their parents. Put differently, this paper analyzes the emergence of the issue and its evolution within an argumentative discussion. It has the objective to understand how discussions can evolve in case the issue is not (entirely) shared among the discussants. This research interest emerged during the exploration of a corpus of argumentative discussions that occurred in a family setting. The corpus features discussions in which the issue may not be, only partially or supposedly shared among an adult and a child. In fact, sometimes the discussants seem to lead ‘two different discussions', or typically the child, ‘modifies' the issue in order to better accommodate the adult's request, his or her own perspective on the discussed facts or to indirectly support the standpoint taken on the main issue. The following analysis aims at shedding light on where the ‘problem' of the incompatible issues lies.
2. Methodology
The argumentative discussion will be reconstructed by means of a slightly modified version of the analytical overview2 (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1992:
93–95) taken from the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). In Pragma-Dialectics, argumentation is perceived as a social and communicative interaction. With the analytic overview, it provides a heuristic grid for the reconstruction of argumentative sequences within interaction.
Furthermore, the Aristotelian concept of endoxon (Tredennick & Forster 1960:
273–275) will be used for the analysis of the negotiation of the issue. The endoxon is a component of the material-contextual premise of a person's reasoning that is often left implicit in the actual discussion. The term endoxon designates "opinions that are accepted by everyone or by the majority […]"
(Rigotti & Greco Morasso 2009: 45). In the present case, an endoxon can be
2 The analytical overview taken from van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) was modified in order to give a greater emphasis on the issue and to clearly display the temporal sequence in which the contributions occurred.
specific to one family (i.e. be a rule or a specific habit that is shared among all the family members, but not necessary among people that do not belong to the family).
3. Corpus
The case chosen for this paper stems from a corpus of everyday discussions in family, collected in three different linguistic regions of Switzerland at the beginning of 2016. The discussions between the children and adults (in most cases one or both of their parents) have not been induced. The researcher visited the families at their homes, observing and audiotaping their conversations without giving them specific tasks or instructions about what to do during the researcher's visit. The registered discussions, therefore, naturally occurred in everyday family interactions such as playing, eating a meal together or doing household related tasks. Even though it is not possible to rule out that the presence of the researcher had an influence on the children's behavior, bilateral conversation with the parents confirmed that the children's behavior during the researcher's visit did not differ from their usual behavior in family.
4. Analysis
In the following paragraphs the negotiation of the issue in a discussion between Ladina (4:11 years old) and her mother will be analyzed. The discussion takes place in the family's kitchen at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning. The original language is a variety of Swiss German. At the beginning of the transcript, Ladina and her mother both refer to the researcher (R.). Later in the conversation, Ladina also refers to her friends Rahel, Anna and Lisa who will visit her in the afternoon. Ladina's brother Flurin (2:2 years old) intervenes in turn 9, but his mother and sister do not consider his contribution.
Turn Speaker Transcript My translation (0:08:40.5)
1 Ladina mami hüt isch ja d R. da und ((flüstert der mutter etwas ins ohr))
schoggistängeli ((flüstert)
mummy today R is here and ((whispers something in the mother’s ear)) chocolate bar ((whispers))
2 Mother will d R. da isch wetsch du es schoggistängeli↑ mm ((verneint)) weisch wieso↑
will das han ich dir no welle zeige du hesch mich gfrogt was ich gkäuft ha wenn d für wenn d Rahel chunnt
because R is here you would like to have a chocolate bar ↑ mm ((negates)) you know why↑
because i wanted to show you you asked me what i bought for when Rahel will come
3 Ladina aha ah
4 Mother lue iz das da ((nimmt eine packung mit süssgebäck zum küchenschrank heraus))de düemer scho öppis süesses
look ((takes out a package of pastry out of the cupboard)) we will already eat something sweet as an afternoon snack
zum zvieri ässe lueg das
sind madeleines look these are french madeleines
5 Ladina ((schaut die madeleines an))(3.0)w wieviel döf jede
((looks at the french
madeleines)) (3.0) h how many can each one of us have
6 Mother eh wosch mal zelle↑ (1.0) eh do you want to count↑ (1.0)
7 Ladina xxx xxx
8 Mother zell du mal= have a go
9 Flurin will au zelle i want to count too 10 Ladina eis zwei drei vier (3.0)
füf sächs one two three four (3.0) five six
11 Mother mhm weisch ä wie viel mer
sind↑ (1.0) hüt namitag↑ mhm do you also know how many we will be↑ (1.0) this
afternoon↑
12 Ladina eis zwei drü (2.0) vier
füf (3.0) one two three (2.0) four five (3.0)
13 Mother chumm zell nomal d Anna come on count once again Anna 14 Ladina mhm (1.0) d Rahel ich du
(1.0) dr Flurin (2.0) und (1.0) d Lisa (2.0) aber d Lisa cha ja no nüt süesses ässe
mhm (1.0) Rahel me you (1.0) Flurin (2.0) and (1.0) Lisa (2.0) but Lisa cannot yet eat sweets
15 Mother i weiss es nid d Lisa isch scho gross jetz mir chö mirmnd mir müed froge ich weiss es nid (1.0)
i don’t know Lisa is already grown up now we ca we need to ask i don’t know (1.0)
16 Ladina aber jetz sind ja süsch z chli ich wett ja öppis grosses ässe
but (they) are yeah too small i want to eat something big 17 Mother aber lueg mal jetz wenn
alli döfe eins ässe denn längts für jede grad eins (1.0) gäll (4.0)
but see if everyone is allowed to have one there will be just one for each of us (1.0) you see (4.0)
18 Ladina aber wiso chani nid es halbs mitem Flurin (3.0)((spricht vom schoggistängeli))
but why can’t i share half with Flurin (3.0) ((she is talking about the chocolate bar))
19 Mother wötsch kei ganzes oder wie↑ (1.0) ((spricht von den madeleines))
don’t you want an entire one↑
(1.0) ((is talking about the french madeleines))
20 Ladina schoggistängeli xxx chocolate bar xxx 21 Mother ne iz düemer ä kä
schoggistängeli ässe
Ladina weisch mir händ zum znacht scho süesses und mir düen am wuchenend süesses ässe mir händ ganz vil wär het am wuchenend geburtstag↑
no now we don’t have chocolate bars Ladina you know we will have sweets for dinner and we will eat sweets on the weekend too we have a lot who has her birthday on the weekend↑
22 Ladina i:ch me:
(0:10:24.6)
Figure 1: transcript of the discussion between Ladina (4:11 years) and her mother
Throughout this discussion, it becomes clear that Ladina does not seem to spare any expense to reach her goal: the chocolate bar. In fact, within the main discussion, several sub discussions, some of them argued, can be identified. In the following analytical overview that was slightly adapted from van Eemeren &
Grootendorst (1992: 93–95), only the argued issues that are necessary for the analysis of the negotiation of the issue are represented.
Issue: (Can Ladina have a chocolate bar?) Ladina, Standpoint 1 Mother, Standpoint 2
T. 1 1 (yes) T. 2 2 no
Arguments in support of Standpoint 1 Arguments in support of Standpoint 2 T. 1 1.1 R. is here
T. 4 2.1 we will already eat something sweet as an afternoon snack
Sub issue°: (Are the madeleines enough?)
Ladina Standpoint°1 T. 16 °1 (no)
Arguments in support of Standpoint°1 T. 16 °1.1a the madeleines are too
small
°1.1b I want to eat something big
T. 21 2.2a we will have sweets for dinner already
T. 21 2.2b we will eat sweets at the weekend
T. 21 2.3 we will have a lot of sweets
Figure 2: analytical overview of the discussion between Ladina and her mother
As figure 2 shows, the discussion is initiated by Ladina, who proposes the main issue "Can I have a chocolate bar?" and is also responsible for the introduction of the following sub issue "Are the madeleines enough?". Ladina's request, which becomes the main issue of this discussion, would not be argumentative as such. However, it seems that Ladina is aware from the start that she will need to support her (implicit) standpoint with arguments. She therefore, together with her standpoint, puts forward argument 1.1 "R. is here". Her mother does not agree with Ladina's standpoint and gives a counterargument that she visually supports by showing the French madeleines to Ladina. So, even though the mother would have the possibility to immediately shut down the discussion, thanks to her parental authority, she dedicates herself to this rather lengthy discussion with her daughter. Figure 3 illustrates the ongoing discussions on the different issues, as well as the endoxa the discussants respectively base their reasoning on.
Issue (Ladina): Can I get a chocolate bar?
Ladina, Standpoint 1 Mother, Standpoint 2
1 (Yes, I can get a chocolate
bar) 2 No, (you cannot get a
chocolate bar) Argument supporting
Standpoint 1 Arguments supporting
Standpoint 2
1.1 R is here 2.1 we will already eat
something sweet as an afternoon snack
Sub issue (Ladina): (Are the madeleines enough?)
Ladina, Standpoint on sub
issue Mother, Standpoint on sub
issue
°1 (No) °2 (Yes)
Arguments supporting
standpoint on sub issue Arguments supporting
Standpoint 2
°1.1 the madeleines are too
small 2.2a we will have sweets for
dinner already
°1.2 I want to eat something big
2.2b we will eat sweets at the weekend
2.3 we will have a lot of sweets
Figure 3: analysis of the negotiation of the issue
Family Endoxon 2:
One should not eat too many sweets.
Ladina’s interpretation of Endoxon 1:
We are allowed to have exceptional sweets for every visit we get.
Ladina’s interpretation of Endoxon 2:
A madeleine is not enough.
Family Endoxon 1:
If visitors are coming to our house, the children are allowed to have things they usually aren’t.
Mother’s interpretation of Endoxon 1:
The children are allowed to have exceptional sweets, if we have visitors with a daily maximum of 1.
Mother’s interpretation of Endoxon 2:
A madeleine is the right amount of sweets
