Search

Despite the ubiquity of conventional implicatures in language and the critical role they play in argumentation, they have heretofore been almost entirely absent from theories of argument and the linguistic expression of reasoning. In this paper, we discuss conventional implicatures (cis) as an interesting phenomenon at the interface of semantics, pragmatics and argumentation by harnessing research in semantics and pragmatics and extending an existing account for argument diagramming with this type of implicit meaning. In particular, we show that cis are unlike enthymemes, which are extremely challenging to conceptualise and to specify precisely. Instead, cis are anchored on the linguistic surface, trigger a largely predictable discourse contribution and are therefore more apt for argument analysis. By surfacing conventionally implicated material, we can unpack a wider variety of ways in which arguments are triggered by, composed of, and demolished by implicit discourse material, in particular inferential structures, conflicts and references to ethos. This also allows us to model the complex interplay between conventional implicature and argumentation, which in turn sheds new light on the interplay of meaning and argumentation in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we present US2016, the largest publicly available set of corpora of annotated dialogical argumentation. The annotation covers argumentative relations, dialogue acts and pragmatic features. The corpora comprise transcriptions of television debates leading up to the 2016 US presidential elections, and reactions to the debates on Reddit. These two constitutive parts of the corpora are integrated by means of the intertextual correspondence between them. The rhetorical richness and high argument density of the communicative context results in cross-genre corpora that are robust resources for the study of the dialogical dynamics of argumentation in three ways: first, in empirical strands of research in discourse analysis and argumentation studies; second, in the burgeoning field of argument mining where automatic techniques require such data; and third, in formulating algorithmic techniques for sensemaking through the development of Argument Analytics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While several taxonomies of meta-discourse exist, none clearly explains speakers’ strategies in mediation. Mediators, however, seem to rely a lot on meta-discourse to manage the argument while preserving their neutrality. This article proposes corpus analyses to detect mediation participants’ discourse strategies and highlight the role and function of a meta-discourse element – the verb ‘to say’. This article is a first step towards the elaboration of a taxonomy for the analysis of argumentative meta-discourse and brings new insights into meta-discourse in argumentative dialogues and mediation discourse in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of computational models of argument is emerging as an important aspect of artificial intelligence research. The reason for this is based on the recognition that if we are to develop robust intelligent systems, then it is imperative that they can handle incomplete and inconsistent information in a way that somehow emulates the way humans tackle such a complex task. And one of the key ways that humans do this is to use argumentation either internally, by evaluating arguments and counterarguments? or externally, by for instance entering into a discussion or debate where arguments are exchanged. As we report in this review, recent developments in the field are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debating technologies, a newly emerging strand of research into computational technologies to support human debating, offer a powerful way of providing naturalistic, dialogue-based interaction with complex information spaces. The full potential of debating technologies for dialogical argument can, however, only be realized once key technical and engineering challenges are overcome, namely data structure, data availability, and interoperability between components. Our aim in this article is to show that the Argument Web, a vision for integrated, reusable, semantically rich resources connecting views, opinions, arguments, and debates online, offers a solution to these challenges. Through the use of a running example taken from the domain of citizen dialogue, we demonstrate for the first time that different Argument Web components focusing on sensemaking, engagement, and analytics can work in concert as a suite of debating technologies for rich, complex, dialogical argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses topics related to argument and computation and articles in the issue on topics including defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification and the dialogue model of belief.

How should we evaluate an argument in which two witnesses independently testify to some claim? In fact what would happen is that the testimony of the second witness would be taken to corroborate that of the first to some extent, thereby boosting up the plausibility of the first argument from testimony. But does that commit the fallacy of double counting, because the second testimony is already taken as independent evidence supporting the claim? Perhaps the corroboration effect should be considered illogical, since each premise should be seen as representing a separate reason in a convergent argument for accepting the claim as plausible. In this paper, we tackle the problem using argumentation schemes and argument diagramming. We examine a number of examples, and come up with two hypotheses that offer methods of analyzing and evaluating this kind of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Multiagent Argumentation, Logic, and Opinion (Magtalo) system for facilitating online discussion. Magtalo combines a user-friendly interface with a robust argumentation foundation. Arguments are instantiated as knowledge structures and interaction is intuitive. Multiagents are employed to represent individual viewpoints. To foster discussion rather than just debate, Magtalo incorporates a protocol that allows for sophisticated dialog beyond mere interrogation. Agents are empowered to interject in a discussion when warranted.

Argumentation theory involves the analysis of naturally occurring argument, and one key tool employed to this end both in the academic community and in teaching critical thinking skills to undergraduates is argument diagramming. By identifying the structure of an argument in terms of its constituents and the relationships between them, it becomes easier to critically evaluate each part of an argument in turn. The task of analysis and diagramming, however, is labor intensive and often idiosyncratic, which can make academic exchange difficult. The Araucaria system provides an interface which supports the diagramming process, and then saves the result using AML, an open standard, designed in XML, for describing argument structure. Araucaria aims to be of use not only in pedagogical situations, but also in support of research activity. As a result, it has been designed from the outset to handle more advanced argumentation theoretic concepts such as schemes, which capture stereotypical patterns of reasoning. The software is also designed to be compatible with a number of applications under development, including dialogic interaction and online corpus provision. Together, these features, combined with its platform independence and ease of use, have the potential to make Araucaria a valuable resource for the academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]