Generous and empathic, or pragmatic and utilitarian? The arguments of chilean elderly people confronted with a social dilemma
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.lyl.n75a09Keywords:
elderly people, argument, lexicometry, keywordsAbstract
This paper discusses some results of a research on the argumentative faculty in older adults (aged over 65) from three regions of Chile, particularly their written responses to a social dilemma. The results indicate that older adults who choose to empathize with the protagonist of the social dilemma are mostly 70-year-old women and more educated. Their arguments show greater density in terms of the quantity and relevance of reasons to support their point of view.
Downloads
References
Arancibia, B., Véliz, M., Riffo, B. & Roa-Ureta, R. (2014). Procesamiento de cláusulas relativas anidadas, memoria operativa y envejecimiento. RLA, 52(1), pp.155-179.
Burke, D. & Shafto, M. (2008). Language and Aging. En F. Craik & T. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 373-443). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Caplan, D., Dede, G., Waters, G., Michaud, J. & Tripodis, Y. (2011). Effects of age speed of processing and working memory on comprehension of sentences with relative clauses. Psychology and Aging, 26(2), pp. 439-450
Condret-Santi, V., Barbeau, E., Matharan, F., Le Goff, M., Dartigues, J. & Amieva, H. (2015). Prevalence of Word Retrieval Complaint and Prediction of Dementia in a Population-Based Study of Elderly Subjects. Dementia & Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 35(5/6), pp. 313-324.
Crespo, N. (1995). El desarrollo ontogenético del argumento. Revista Signos, 18(37), pp. 69-82.
Dede, G., Caplan, D., Kemtes, K. & Waters, G. (2004). The Relationship Between Age Verbal Working Memory, and Language comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 19(4), pp.601-616.
Ducrot, O. (2004). Sentido y argumentación. En E. Arnoux & M. García (Eds.), Homenaje a Oswald Ducrot (pp. 359-370). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Ducrot, O. & Carel, M. (2006). La semántica argumentativa. Una introducción a la teoría de los bloques semánticos. Buenos Aires: Colihue.
Eemeren, F. van. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eemeren, F. van, Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness. Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. New York: Springer.
Fabrigoule, C., Bareberger-Gateau, F. & Dartigues, J. F. (2006). The PAQUID study. En H. A. Tuokko & D. F. Hultsch (Eds.), Mild Cognitive Impairment. International Perspectives (pp. 31-55). Nueva York: Taylor & Francis.
Feldman, R. (2005). Deep Disagreement, Rational Resolutions and Critical Thinking. Informal Logic, 25 (1), pp.13-23.
Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable Religious Disagreement. En L. M. Antony, (Ed.), Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life (pp. 194-214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
García, M. (por aparecer). El enfoque dialógico de la argumentación y la polifonía, puntos de vista evidenciales y puntos de vista alusivos. Revista de Filología Hispánica.
Gollan, T. & Brown, A. (2006). From tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) Data to Theoretical Implications in Two Steps: When more TOTs Means Better Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135, pp. 462-483.
Hammer, L. & Noemi, C. (2015). Relación entre pensamiento crítico y complejidad discursiva en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Onomazein, 32, pp.184-197.
Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hample, D., Warner, B. & Young, D. (2009). Framing and Editing Interpersonal Arguments. Argumentation, 23, pp. 21-37.
Hample, D. & Anagondahalli, D. (2015). Understandings of Arguing in India and the United States: Argument Frames, Personalization of Conflict, Argumentativeness, and Verbal Aggressiveness. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 44,1-26.
Hu, X. (2017). Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience? Argumentation, 31(1), pp. 165-177.
Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (2017). http://www.censo2017.cl/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Presentacion_Resultados_Definitivos_Censo2017.pdf, recuperado el 9 de febrero de 2018.
Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Johnson, R. & Blair, A. (1977). Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Juncos, O., Pereiro, A. & Rodríguez, M. (2005). Narrative speech in aging: Quantity, information content, and cohesion. Brain and Language, 95, pp. 423-434.
Juncos, O., Facal, D., Álvarez, M. & Rodríguez M.S. (2006). El fenómeno de la punta de la lengua (PDL) en el proceso de envejecimiento. Psicothema, 18(3)3, pp. 500-505.
Kemper, S. (1992). Language and aging. En F.I. Craik & T. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 213-270). Hillsdale N. J.: Erlbaum.
Kemper, S., Herman, R. & Chiung-Ju, L. (2004). Sentence production by young and older adults in controlled contexts. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Science, 59B, pp. 230-234.
Kemper, S., Herman, R. & Lian, C. (2003). The Costs of Doing Two Things at Once for Young and Older Adults: Talking While Walking, Finger Tapping, and Ignoring Speech or Noise. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), pp. 181-192.
Kemper, S., Thompson, M. & Marquis, J. (2001). Longitudinal change in language production: Effects of aging and dementia on gramatical complexity and propositional content. Psychology and Aging, 16, pp. 600-614.
Kemper, S. & Sumner, A. (2001). The Structure of Verbal Abilities in Young an Older Adults. Psychology and Aging, 16, pp. 312-322.
Kemper, S., Greiner, L., Marquis, J., Prenovost, K. & Mitzner, T. (2001). Language Decline Across the Life Span: Findings From the Nun Study. Psychology and Aging, 16, pp. 227-239.
Lange, P. van, Rockenbach, B. & Yamagishi, T. (2014). Reward and Punishment in Social Dilemmas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mackenzie, C. (2000). Adult Spoken Discourse: The Influences of Age and Education. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35, pp. 269-285.
Martín-Aragoneses, M. & Fernández-Blázquez, M. (2012). El lenguaje en el envejecimiento: Procesos de recuperación léxica. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 32(2), pp. 34-46.
Mercier, H. (2011a). When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning. Argumentation, 23(3), pp. 313-327.
Mercier, H. (2011b). Reasoning Serves Argumentation in Children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), pp. 177-191.
Mercier, H. (2016). The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), pp. 689-700.
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. A New Theory of Human Understanding. London: Allen Lane.
Migdalek, M., Santibáñez, C. & Rosemberg, C. (2014). Estrategias argumentativas en niños pequeños: Un estudio a partir de las disputas durante el juego en contextos escolares. Revista Signos, 47(86), pp. 435-462.
Padilla, C. & López, E. (2011). Grados de complejidad argumentativa en escritos de estudiantes universitarios de humanidad. Revista Praxis, 13(20), pp. 61-90.
Palmer, K., Bäckman, L., Small, B. & Fratiglioni, L. (2006). Cognitive Impairment in Elderly Person Without Dementia: Findings From the Kungsholmen Project. En H. Tuokko & D. Hultsch (Eds.), Mild Cognitive Impairment. International Perspectives (pp. 57-75). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Parodi, G. (2000). La evaluación de la producción de textos escritos argumentativos: una alternancia cognitivo/ discursiva. Revista Signos, 33 (47), pp.151-16.
Peronard, M. (1991). Antecedentes ontogenéticos de la argumentación. En E. Luna (Coord.), Scripta philologica: In honorem Juan M. Lope Blanch (pp. 417-443). México: Universidad Autónoma de México.
Quiroga, P., Albala, C. & Klaassen, G. (2004). Validación de un test de tamizaje para el diagnóstico de demencia asociada a edad, en Chile. Revista Médica de Chile, 132(4), pp. 467-478.
Ricco, R. & Sierra, A. (2011). Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation. Argumentation, 25, pp. 37-61.
Riffo, B. & Benoit, C. (2007). Procesamiento de oraciones con incrustación central y derecha en adultos jóvenes y AM. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 45 (1), pp. 13-31.
Santibáñez, C. (2014). ¿Para qué sirve argumentar? Problematizando teórica y empíricamente el valor y la función de la argumentación. Revista Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 58, pp. 163-205.
Santibáñez, C. & Hample, D. (2015). Orientations Toward Interpersonal Arguing in Chile. Pragmatics, 23 (3), pp. 453-476.
Santibáñez, C., Migdalek, M. & Rosemberg, C. (2016). Estilos argumentativos en jóvenes universitarios chilenos: Implicancias para una pedagogía colectiva. En Santibáñez, C. (Comp.), Ecología argumentativa universitaria: desde la realidad a los conceptos (pp. 161-186). Concepción: Cosmigonon.
Schär, R. (2011). Uses of Arguments from Definition in Children’s Argumentation. En P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1-15), 18-21 May 2016. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Schär, R. (2017). Definitional Arguments in Children’s Speech. L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 1, 173-192.
Sperber, D. & Mercier, H. (2012). Reasoning as a Social Competence. En H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (pp. 68-392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, T., Verhaeghen, P., Ghisletta, P., Lindenberger, U. & Baltes, P. B. (2003). The Fate of Cognition in Very Old Age: Six Years Longitudinal Findings in the Berlin Aging Study (BASE). Psyhology and Aging, 18, pp. 318-331.
Tapia-Ladino, M. (2005). Producción de habla y fenómenos de vacilación en la conversación de adultos jóvenes y AM. Anales de Psiquiatría, 21(5), pp. 215-222.
Tindale, C. (2004). Rhetorical Argumentation. New York: Sage.
Tomasello, M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
Ulatowska, H. (Ed). (1985). The Aging Brain. Communication in the Elderly. Boston: College-Hill.
Véliz, M. (2004). Procesamiento de estructuras sintácticas complejas en AM y adultos jóvenes. Estudios Filológicos, 39, pp. 65-81.
Véliz, M., Riffo, B., Aguilar, V. & Sáez, K. (2011). Procesamiento de oraciones ambiguas de vía muerta y envejecimiento: un estudio experimental. Revista Onomazein, 24(2), pp. 199-222.
Véliz, M., Riffo, B., Hernández, M., Sáez, Y. & Sáez, K. (2013). Oraciones producidas por AM y adultos jóvenes en una situación controlada. Revista Onomazein, 27, pp. 241-257.
Véliz, M., Riffo, B. & Vásquez, A. (2009). Recuerdo inmediato de oraciones de sintaxis compleja en adultos jóvenes y mayores. Estudios Filológicos, 44, pp. 243-258.
Walton, D. (2007). Media Argumentation. Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R., Beckett, L., Barnes, L., Schneider, J., Bach, J., Evans, D. & cols. (2002). Individual Difference in Rates of Change in Cognitive Abilities of Older Persons. Psychology and Aging, 17, pp. 179-193.
Wingfield, A. & Stine-Morrow, E. (2000). Language and Speech. En F. Craik & T. Salthouse (Eds.), The Handbook of Aging and Cognition (pp. 359-416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Xie,Y., Hample, D. & Wang, X. (2015). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Argument Predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, Verbal Aggressiveness, Argument Frames, and Personalization of Conflict. Argumentation , 29, pp. 265-284.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Lingüística y Literatura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons by-nc-sa
Those authors who have publications with this journal, accept the following terms:
1. The journal is the owner of the copyright of the articles, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. that allows third parties to share the work provided its author is indicated and its first publication in this journal.
2. The authors may adopt other agreements of non-exclusive license of distribution of the version of the published work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematic file or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
3. Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work via the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematic files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase citations of the published work.
