Journal
ARGUMENTATION
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 101-139Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x
Keywords
Annotation; Argument scheme; Argumentation scheme; Argument scheme key (ASK); Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP); Corpus; Election debates; Periodic table of arguments
Categories
Funding
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) in the United Kingdom [EP/N014871/1]
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant [435-2012-0104]
- EPSRC [EP/N014871/1] Funding Source: UKRI
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Argument schemes are essential abstractions for understanding argumentative communication. Annotated corpora of argumentative discourse are limited, particularly in terms of argument scheme corpora. By extending existing annotated corpora and proposing improvements in annotation guidelines, this paper contributes to a better understanding of argumentation in communicative practice.
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available