Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

Wagemans, Jean H. M.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2769833

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an extensive body of literature on conceptual modelling (as well as ontologies), and conceptual modelling is practised today through the use of many techniques, languages and tools, such as ConML [6,7], OntoUML [12] or OWL [13]. To express discourse models, as introduced above, we employ a slightly modified version of IAT [3,4], supplemented with details from the Periodic Table of Arguments [14,15], which we tentatively call IAT+. The details of IAT+ are out of the scope of this paper, but they should not matter for the current discussion, as the approach that we propose is independent of the particular formalisms chosen for modelling; this is elaborated further in Section 4.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Discourse and Domain Models in Discourse Analysis through Ontological Proxies

González-Pérez

2020

Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argumentation-oriented discourse analysis usually focuses on what is being said and how, following the text under analysis quite literally, and paying little attention to the things in the world to which the text refers. However, to perform argumentation-oriented discourse analysis, one must assume certain conceptualisations by the speaker in order to interpret and reconstruct propositions and argumentation structures. These conceptualisations are rarely captured as a product of the analysis process. In this paper, we argue that considering the ontology to which a discourse refers as well as the text itself provides a richer and more useful representation of the discourse and its argumentation structures, facilitates intertextual analysis, and improves understandability of the analysis products. To this end, we propose the notion of ontological proxies, i.e., conceptual artefacts that connect elements in the argumentation structure to the associated ontology elements.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting Discourse and Domain Models in Discourse Analysis through Ontological Proxies

González-Pérez

2020

Electronics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the great challenges facing this work has been the principled organisation and taxonomisation of schemes (see, e.g., Katzav and Reed ( 2004 ); Walton and Macagno ( 2015 )), leading other authors such as Wagemans ( 2016 ) to propose a priori exhaustive grounds for scheme definition and classification. While Walton’s classification can be characterised as an empirically motivated taxonomy of types of argument encountered in argumentative practice, Wagemans’ Periodic Table of Arguments is a factorial typology that specifies a comprehensive set of argument types on the basis of a limited set of theoretical descriptions of argument characteristics.…”

Section: Argument Scheme Corporamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recently developed classification of argument types (Gobbo and Wagemans 2019a , b , c ; Visser et al. 2018b ; Wagemans 2016 , 2017 , 2018a , b , 2019a ), the Periodic Table of Arguments (PTA) aims to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive alternative for the variety of existing taxonomies of argumentative techniques. The PTA presents a transparent theoretical rationale for distinguishing between the types of argument.…”

Section: Annotation Guidelines For Argument Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annotating Argument Schemes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Argument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise(s) and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend to suffer from a combination of limited size, poor validation, and the use of ad hoc restricted typologies. In the current paper, we describe the annotation of schemes on the basis of two distinct classifications: Walton's taxonomy of argument schemes, and Wagemans' Periodic Table of Arguments. We describe the annotation procedure for each, and the quantitative characteristics of the resulting annotated text corpora. In doing so, we extend the annotation of the preexisting US2016 corpus of televised election debates, resulting in, to the best of our knowledge, the two largest consistently annotated corpora of schemes in argumentative dialogue publicly available. Based on evaluation in terms of inter-annotator agreement, we propose further improvements to the guidelines for annotating schemes: the argument scheme key, and the Argument Type Identification Procedure.

show abstract

“…But there are obvious disadvantages to this approach as well. The most serious of these is that it ignores how the experts themselves reason, and focuses only on what happens in the ''second-order predications'' (Wagemans 2016b) that are the defining feature of arguments from expert opinion. But how the experts themselves reason also needs theorizing; before anything can figure in an argument from expert opinion, at least one expert must have done some reasoning, and there should be some way to connect questioning of the second-order predications with questions that could be raised directly about the first-order predications.…”

Section: Representing Arguments Warranted By Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health

Jackson

Schneider

2017

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary reasoning about health is infused with the work products of experts, and expert reasoning about health itself is an active site for invention and design. Building on Toulmin's largely undeveloped ideas on field-dependence, we argue that expert fields can develop new inference rules that, together with the backing they require, become accepted ways of drawing and defending conclusions. The new inference rules themselves function as warrants, and we introduce the term ''warranting device'' to refer to an assembly of the rule plus whatever material, procedural, and institutional resources are required to assure its dependability. We present a case study on the Cochrane Review, a new method for synthesizing evidence across large numbers of scientific studies. After reviewing the evolution and current structure of the device, we discuss the distinctive kinds of critical questions that may be raised around Cochrane Reviews, both within the expert field and beyond. Although Toulmin's theory of field-dependence is often criticized for its relativism, we find that, as a matter of practical fact, field-specific warrants do not enjoy immunity from external critique. On the contrary, they can be opened to evaluation and critique from any interested perspective.

show abstract

Constructing a Periodic Table of Arguments

Cited by 27 publications

References 11 publications

Connecting Discourse and Domain Models in Discourse Analysis through Ontological Proxies

Connecting Discourse and Domain Models in Discourse Analysis through Ontological Proxies

Annotating Argument Schemes

Cochrane Review as a “Warranting Device” for Reasoning About Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About