From text to scheme
Problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Douglas Walton in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marcin Koszowy in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
-
Budzynska, Katarzyna, Mathilde Janier, Chris Reed, Patrick Saint-Dizier, Manfred Stede & Olena Yaskorska. 2014. Towards argument mining from dialogue. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed & F. Cerutti (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 185–196. Pitlochry: IOS Press.
-
Budzynska, Katarzyna & Chris Reed. 2011. Whence Inference? University of Dundee Technical Report.
-
Duthie, Rory, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed. 2016. Mining ethos in political debate. In P. Baroni, M. Stede & T. Gordon (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 299–310. Berlin: IOS Press.
-
Duthie, Rory, John Lawrence, Katarzyna Budzynska & Chris Reed. 2016. The CASS technique for evaluating the performance of argument mining. In Working Notes of the 3rd International Workshop on Argument Mining, 40–49. Berlin: ACL.
-
Freeman, James B. 2011. Argument Structure: Representation and Theory. Berlin: Springer.
-
Gordon, Thomas F. 2010. The Carneades argumentation support system. In C. Reed & C.W. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation, 145–156. London: College Publications.
-
Janier, Mathilde, John Lawrence & Chris Reed. 2014. OVA+: An argument analysis interface. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed & F. Cerutti (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 463–464. Pitlochry: IOS Press.
-
Koszowy, Marcin & Katarzyna Budzynska. 2016. Towards a model for ethotic structures in dialogical context. In P. Saint Dizier & M. Stede (eds.), Foundations of the Language of Argumentation—The Workshop at the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 40–47. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
-
LaBarge, Scott. 2011. Socrates and the recognition of experts. Apeiron 30: 51–62.
-
Lawrence, John & Chris Reed. 2015. Combining argument mining techniques. In Proceeding of the 2nd Workshop on Argument Mining, 127–136. Denver: Association for Computational Linguistics.
-
Lawrence, John & Chris Reed. 2016. Argument mining using argumentation scheme structures. In P. Baroni, M. Stede & T. Gordon (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 50–66. Berlin: IOS Press.
-
Lippi, Marco & Paolo Torroni. 2016. Argumentation mining: State of the art and emerging trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, http://lia.disi.unibo.it/~ml/publications/ACMTOIT2015.pdf.
-
Peldszus, Andreas & Manfred Stede. 2013. From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: A survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 7: 1–31.
-
Reed, Chris & Katarzyna Budzynska. 2011. How dialogues create arguments. In F.H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2010), 14–26. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
-
Reed, Chris, Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. Knowledge Engineering Review 22: 87–109.
-
Santibáñez, Cristian & Dale Hample. 2015. Orientations toward interpersonal arguing in Chile. Pragmatics 25: 453–476.
-
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Shi, Xu & Manfred Kienpointner. 2001. The reproduction of culture through argumentative discourse: Studying the contested nature of Hong Kong in the international media. Pragmatics 11: 285–307.
-
Verheij, Bart. 2003. Artificial argument assistants for defeasible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 150: 291–324.
-
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 745–777.
-
Walton, Douglas. 2008. Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Walton, Douglas. 2011. Argument mining by applying argumentation schemes. Studies in Logic 4: 38–64.
-
Walton, Douglas & Marcin Koszowy. 2017. Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systems. AI & Society 32: 483–496.
-
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 682 | 115 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 183 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 29 | 2 | 1 |
From text to scheme
Problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Douglas Walton in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marcin Koszowy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
We show how to solve common problems in identifying arguments from expert opinion, illustrated by five examples selected from The Economist. Our method started by intuitively identifying many appeals to alleged experts in The Economist and comparing them to the argumentation scheme for argument from expert opinion. This approach led us to (i) extending the existing list of possible faults committed when arguments from expert opinion are performed and (ii) proposing the extension of the list of linguistic cues that would allow analysts to identify arguments from expert opinion. Our ultimate aim is to help argument identification by argument mining connect better with techniques of argument analysis and evaluation.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 682 | 115 | 13 |
| Full Text Views | 183 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 29 | 2 | 1 |