Bova, Antonio Arcidiacono, Francesco 2014 This study aims to single out the argumentative strategies most frequently used by parents to convince their children to accept their rules and prescriptions at mealtimes. The results of thestudy show that parents mostly put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to persuade their childern to eat. Less frequently, the parents put forward other types of arguments such as the appeal to consistency, the arguments from expert opinion, and the argument from analogy. While the former can be defined as " food-bound", because through these arguments parents and children highlight a specific propriety (positive/negative) of food, the latters are mostly used in discussions related to teaching correct table-manner and how to behave with strangers and peers outside the family context. application/pdf https://localhost:5000/ark:/12658/srd1318640 https://susi.usi.ch/global/documents/318640 https://susi.usi.ch/documents/318640/files/Bova_JAP_2014.pdf eng info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/ark/12658/srd1318640 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess License undefined Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata/Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics / Serra, Fabrizio. - 2014, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 43-66 Argumentative strategies types of argument mealtime family conversations info:eu-repo/classification/udc/65 Types of arguments in parents-children discussions : an argumentative analysis http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501