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 the study show that parents mostly put forward arguments based on the quality and quantity of food to persuade their children to eat. Less frequently, the parents put forward other types of arguments such as the appeal to consistency, the arguments from expert opinion, and 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-manners and how to behave with strangers and peers outside the family context.
- Argumentative strategies, types of argument, mealtime, family conversations