1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Nota Bene
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2 Number 1
  • ISSN 2950-189X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-1881
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper examines the role of argumentation topoi in discourse analysis, focusing on their identification, annotation, and automated classification. While topos analysis is a well-established method for uncovering collective patterns of reasoning in public discourse, its application in large-scale digital discourse analysis poses methodological challenges. This study investigates the so-called utility topos in bioethical debates, which encompasses both medical and economic arguments about benefit. We collaboratively developed annotation guidelines to ensure consistency and measured inter-annotator agreement. We then trained a BERT-based model on the gold-standard annotations and used it to classify utility topoi in German texts. The results indicate that while explicit argument structures are detectable, implicit and context-dependent reasoning remains difficult to capture. These findings highlight the need for refined annotation guidelines and contextual modelling in automated discourse analysis. The study contributes to the integration of qualitative and computational methods in argument analysis.

© 2025 The Author(s)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
2025-09-26
2026-05-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, Paul
    2006 Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. 10.5040/9781350933996
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350933996 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2020 Corpus-assisted discourse analysis. InChristopher Hart (ed.), Researching Discourse: A student guide, 124–142. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780367815042‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815042-8 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery & Ruth Wodak
    2008 A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19.31. 273–306. 10.1177/0957926508088962
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartsch, Sabine, Evelyn Gius, Marcus Müller, Andrea Rapp & Thomas Weitin
    2023 Sinn und Segment. Wie die digitale Analysepraxis unsere Begriffe schärft. Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften81. 10.17175/2023_003
     https://doi.org/10.17175/2023_003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Becker, Maria, Michael Bender & Marcus Müller
    2020 Classifying Heuristic Textual Practices in Academic Discourse: A Deep Learning Approach to Pragmatics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics41. 426–460. 10.1075/ijcl.19097.bec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19097.bec [Google Scholar]
  6. Becker, Maria, Michael Staniek, Vivi Nastase, Alexis Palmer & Annette Frank
    2019 Classifying semantic clause types with recurrent neural betworks: Analysis of attention, context and genre characteristics. TAL Journal (Traitement Automatique des Langues / Natural Language Processing)59.21. 15–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bender, Michael
    2020 Annotation als Methode der digitalen Diskurslinguistik. Diskurse digital. Theorien — Methoden — Fallstudien2.11. 1–35. 10.25521/diskurse‑digital.2020.140
     https://doi.org/10.25521/diskurse-digital.2020.140 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bender, Michael & Marcus Müller
    2020 Heuristische Textpraktiken. Eine kollaborative Annotationsstudie zum akademischen Diskurs. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik48.21. 1–46. 10.1515/zgl‑2020‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2020-0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bender, Michael, Maria Becker, Carina Kiemes & Marcus Müller
    2023 Category Development at the Interface of Interpretive Pragmalinguistic Annotation and Machine Learning — Annotation, Detection and Classification of linguistic routines of discourse referencing in political debates. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 17.31. www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/17/3/000720/000720.html
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bubenhofer, Noah
    2009 Sprachgebrauchsmuster. Korpuslinguistik als Methode der Diskurs- und Kulturanalyse. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215854
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215854 [Google Scholar]
  11. Busse, Dietrich
    1987 Historische Semantik. Analyse eines Programms. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chan, Branden, Stefan Schweter & Timo Möller
    2020 German’s Next Language Model. arXiv. Online: arxiv.org/abs/2010.10906. 10.18653/v1/2020.coling‑main.598
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.598
  13. Habernal, Ivan & Iryna Gurevych
    2016 Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1589–1599. 10.18653/v1/P16‑1150
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1150 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hardt-Mautner, Gerlinde
    1995 ‘Only Connect.’ Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistis. UCREL Technical Papers61. University of Lancaster. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/papers/techpaper/vol6.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hughes, John
    2021 Krippendorffsalpha: An R Package for Measuring Agreement Using Krippendorff’s Alpha Coefficient. The R Journal13.11. 413–425. 10.32614/RJ‑2021‑046
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2021-046 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jung, Matthias
    1994 Zählen oder deuten? Das Methodenproblem der Diskursgeschichte am Beispiel der Atomenergiedebatte. InDietrich Busse, Fritz Hermanns & Wolfgang Teubert (eds.), Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Methodenfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik, 60–81. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2001 Diskurshistorische Analyse — eine linguistische Perspektive. InReiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider & Willy Viehöver (eds.), Handbuch Sozial-wissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse. Vol. 1: Theorien und Methoden, 29–51. Opladen: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑99906‑1_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-99906-1_2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kienpointner, Manfred
    1992 Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 1996 Vernünftig argumentieren. Regeln und Techniken der Diskussion. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Klie, Jan-Christoph, Michael Bugert, Beto Boullosa, Richard Eckart de Castilho & Iryna Gurevych
    2018 The INCEpTION Platform: Machine-Assisted and Knowledge-Oriented Interactive Annotation. Proceedings of System Demonstrations of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2018).
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Kopperschmidt, Josef
    1989 Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 1991 Formale Topik. Anmerkungen zu ihrer heuristischen Funktionalisierung innerhalb einer Argumentationsanalytik. InGert Ueding (ed.), Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme des „Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik“, 53–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110918304.53
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110918304.53 [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, Qi, Matt J. Kusner & Phil Blunsom
    2020 A Survey on Contextual Embeddings. arXiv:2003.07278.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Madabushi, Harish T., Mark Lee & John Barnden
    2018 Integrating question classification and deep learning for improved answer selection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 3283–3294. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1278/
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Marchi, Anna & Charlotte Taylor
    2018 Introduction: Partiality and reflexivity. InCharlotte Taylor & Anna Marchi (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review, 1–15. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315179346‑1
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179346-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. McEnery, Tony & Costas Gabrielatos
    2006 English corpus linguistics. InBas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics, 33–71. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch3
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Müller, Marcus
    2022 Die Plenarprotokolle des Deutschen Bundestags auf Discourse Lab. Korpora Deutsch als Fremdsprache2.11. 123–127. 10.48694/kordaf‑3492
     https://doi.org/10.48694/kordaf-3492 [Google Scholar]
  28. Müller, Marcus, Sabine Bartsch & Jens O. Zinn
    2021 Communicating the unknown. An interdisciplinary annotation study of uncertainty in the coronavirus pandemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics26.41. 498–531. 10.1075/ijcl.21096.mul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21096.mul [Google Scholar]
  29. Müller, Marcus & Jörn Stegmeier
    2019 Investigating risk, uncertainty and normativity within the framework of Digital Discourse Analysis. The example of future technologies in climate change discourse. InAnna Olofsson & Jens O. Zinn (eds.), Researching risk and uncertainty –methodologies, methods and research strategies, 309–335. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95852‑1_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95852-1_13 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2022 Zur Methodologie der kollaborativen Diskursgeschichte. Aptum. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur18.31. 280–296.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Ottmers, Clemens
    1996 Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Metzler. 10.1007/978‑3‑476‑03980‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-03980-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Partington, Alan, Alison Duguid & Charlotte Taylor
    2013 Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.55
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.55 [Google Scholar]
  33. Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak
    2001 Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2009 The Discourse Historical Approach (DHA). InRuth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Rev. 2nd edition, 87–121. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schröter, Juliane
    2021 Linguistische Argumentationsanalyse. Heidelberg: Winter. 10.33675/978‑3‑8253‑7237‑8
     https://doi.org/10.33675/978-3-8253-7237-8 [Google Scholar]
  36. Spieß, Constanze
    2011 Diskurshandlungen: Theorie und Methode linguistischer Diskursanalyse am Beispiel der Bioethikdebatte. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110258813
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110258813 [Google Scholar]
  37. Taylor, Charlotte & Anna Marchi
    (eds.) 2018 Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Toulmin, Stephen
    1975 Der Gebrauch von Argumenten. Kronberg/Ts: Scriptor.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Wengeler, Martin
    2003 Topos und Diskurs. Begründung einer argumentationsanalytischen Methode und ihre Anwendung auf den Migrationsdiskurs (1960-1985). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110913187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913187 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2015 Patterns of Argumentation and the Heterogeneity of Social Knowledge. Journal of Language and Politics14.51. 689–711. 10.1075/jlp.14.5.04wen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.5.04wen [Google Scholar]
  41. 2022 Kontroverse Diskurse. Sprachgeschichte als Zeitgeschichte seit 1990. Ein Forschungsprojekt. Aptum, Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur18.31. 201–206. 10.46771/9783967692877_1
     https://doi.org/10.46771/9783967692877_1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wodak, Ruth
    2001 The Discourse Historical Approach. InRuth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 63–95. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
Loading
The analysis of argumentation topoi
Nota Bene 2, 106 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
/content/journals/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): automated classification; collaborative annotation; discourse analysis; large language models; topos analysis

Most Cited

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