1887
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article offers a first large scale analysis of argumentative polylogues in the fracking controversy. It provides an empirical methodology (macroscope) that identifies, from large quantities of text data through semantic frame analysis, the many players, positions and places presumed relevant to argumentation in a controversy. It goes beyond the usual study of framing in communication research because it considers that a controversy’s communicative context is shaped, and in turn conditions, the making and defending of standpoints. To achieve these novels aims, theoretical insights from frame semantics, knowledge driven argument mining, and argumentative polylogues are combined. The macroscope is implemented using the parser to retrieve all the semantic frames present in a large corpus about fracking and then observing the distribution of those frames that semantically presuppose argumentative features of polylogue (meta-argumentative indicators). The prominent indicators are (indicator of “having an argument”), and (indicators of “making an argument”). The automatic retrieval of the words associated with the core elements of the semantic frame enables the mapping of how different players, positions, and discussion venues are assembled around what is treated as disagreeable in the controversy. This knowledge driven approach to argument mining reveals prototypical traits of polylogues related to environmental issues. Moreover, it addresses a problem in conventional frame analysis common in environmental communication that focuses on the way individual arguments are presented without effective consideration of the argumentative relevance the semantics and pragmatics of certain frames operating across discourses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
2019-02-14
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2017 “The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities”. Philosophy & Technology, 30(2): 191–208. 10.1007/s13347‑016‑0224‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0224-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aakhus, Mark & Marcin Lewiński
    2017 Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek and Punit Dadlani
    2013 “Argumentation in large, complex practices”. InProceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument 11 (pp.1–15). Windsor, ON.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cano-Basave, Amparo Elizabeth and Yulan He
    2016 “A study of the impact of persuasive argumentation in political debates”. InProceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1405–1413.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman
    2007 “Framing theory.” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 10: 103–126. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cox, J. Robert
    2010 Beyond frames: Recovering the strategic in climate communication. Environmental Communication, 4(1): 122–133. 10.1080/17524030903516555
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903516555 [Google Scholar]
  7. Das, Dipanjan, Nathan Schneider, Desai Chen, and Noah A. Smith
    2010 “SEMAFOR 1.0: A probabilistic frame-semantic parser.” Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Entman, Robert M.
    1993 Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4): 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Van Eemeren, Frans H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs
    1993Reconstructing argumentative communication. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Vol.12. Springer Science & Business Media. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough, Isabela
    2019 “Deontic power and institutional contexts: The impact of institutional design on deliberation and decision-making in the UK fracking debate”. Journal of Argumentation in Context8(1). 136–171. 10.1075/jaic.18014.fai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18014.fai [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1976 Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1): 20–32. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse strategies. Vol.1. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hedding, Kylah J.
    2017 Sources and Framing of Fracking: A Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage in North Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania, Environmental Communication11(3): 370–385. 10.1080/17524032.2016.1269819
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1269819 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hymes, Dell
    1964 A perspective for linguistic anthropology. Voice of America. Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson, Sally
    2008 “Black box arguments.” Argumentation22 (3): 437. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9094‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9094-y [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015 “Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice.” Argumentation29(3): 243–263. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1981 “Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation.” Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports)45(2): 118–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kline, Susan L.
    1979 “Toward a contemporary linguistic interpretation of the concept of stasis.” Argumentation and Advocacy16 (2): 95–103. 10.1080/00028533.1979.11951162
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1979.11951162 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George
    2010 Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1): 70–81. 10.1080/17524030903529749
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
    2014 Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2): 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  22. Moens, Marie-Francine
    2017 “Argumentation mining: How can a machine acquire common sense and world knowledge?.” Argument & Computation: 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Musi, Elena
    2016 “Strategies of objectification in opinion articles: the case of evidentials.” InProceedings of the OSSA Conference ‘Argumentation, Objectivity and Bias’, Windsor, 18th-21thMay 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
    2018 “Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining.” Argumentation, 32(3): 397–430. 10.1007/s10503‑017‑9441‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-017-9441-y [Google Scholar]
  25. Olive, Andrea, Ashlie B. Delshad
    2017 Fracking and Framing: A Comparative Analysis of Media Coverage of Hydraulic Fracturing in Canadian and US Newspapers. Environmental Communication11(6): 784–799. 10.1080/17524032.2016.1275734
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275734 [Google Scholar]
  26. Plantin, Christian
    2010 “Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives.” Verbum22(1): 31–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pustejovsky, James
    1991 “The generative lexicon.” Computational linguistics17 (4): 409–441.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Saint-Dizier, Patrick and Manfred Stede
    2017 “Knowledge-driven argument mining based on the qualia structure.” Argument & Computation: 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Saint-Dizier, Patrick
    2017 “Using Question-Answering Techniques to Implement a Knowledge-Driven Argument Mining Approach.” InProceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, 85–90. 10.18653/v1/W17‑5111
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5111 [Google Scholar]
  30. Thompson, Geoff, and Ye Yiyun
    1991 “Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers.” Applied linguistics12: 365–382. 10.1093/applin/12.4.365
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  31. Xie, Boyi, Rebecca J. Passonneau, Leon Wu, and Germán G. Creamer
    2013 “Semantic frames to predict stock price movement.” InProceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 873–883.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentative indicators , argumentative patterns , fracking , frames and polylogue
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error