This study seeks to examine how both parents and children contribute interactionally to the dialogic process of negotiating their divergent opinions during mealtime conversations. Within a data corpus comprising 30 video-recorded meals of 10 Swiss and Italian families, 132 argumentative discussions were selected for qualitative analysis by adopting the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Despite the differences in roles, age, and competencies between parents and children—which help explain both the higher number of different arguments used by parents and the fact that the most frequent type of conclusion was when the child accepted the parent's standpoint—the findings of the pragma-dialectical analysis indicate that the process of negotiating the divergent opinions between parents and children is a co-constructed dialogic process wherein both parties play a fundamental role. By engaging in argumentative discussions, parents accept the commitment of clarifying to their children the reasons on which their standpoints are based. Children, in turn, encourage their parents to advance arguments to justify their standpoints by asking questions. Argumentative discussions in the family context should thus be viewed as a bidirectional dialogical process that opens a shared space for parents and children to think together.

这项研究旨在研究父母和孩子在进餐时间对话中如何协商他们的分歧意见的对话过程。在一个包含10个瑞士和意大利家庭的30顿饭的视频记录的数据语料库中，通过采用批判性讨论的语用辩证法模型，选择了132个讨论性讨论进行定性分析。尽管父母与孩子之间的角色，年龄和能力有所不同，这有助于解释父母使用不同论点的数量较高，以及最常见的结论类型是孩子接受父母的证词的事实。的立场-语用分析的发现表明，对父母与子女之间分歧意见进行谈判的过程是共同建构的对话过程，双方都扮演着基本角色。通过进行辩论式讨论，父母接受了向孩子澄清其立场依据的承诺。反过来，孩子们则鼓励父母提出问题，通过提问来证明自己的立场是正确的。因此，应将家庭背景下的辩论性讨论视为双向对话过程，从而为父母和孩子共同思考提供了一个共享的空间。父母接受向孩子澄清其立场依据的承诺。反过来，孩子们则鼓励父母提出问题，通过提问来证明自己的立场是正确的。因此，应将家庭背景下的辩论性讨论视为双向对话过程，从而为父母和孩子共同思考提供了一个共享的空间。父母接受向孩子澄清其立场依据的承诺。反过来，孩子们则鼓励父母提出问题，通过提问来证明自己的立场是正确的。因此，应将家庭背景下的辩论性讨论视为双向对话过程，从而为父母和孩子共同思考提供了一个共享的空间。