Article published in:Environmental Argumentation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1] 2019
► pp. 112–135
Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies
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 Semafor 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 Taking_sides (indicator of “having an argument”), Evidence and Reasoning (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.
Keywords: argumentative patterns, argumentative indicators, fracking, frames, polylogue
Published online: 14 February 2019
Aakhus, Mark & Marcin Lewiński
Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek and Punit Dadlani
Cano-Basave, Amparo Elizabeth and Yulan He
Cox, J. Robert
Das, Dipanjan, Nathan Schneider, Desai Chen, and Noah A. Smith
Entman, Robert M.
Fillmore, Charles J.
Gao, Huiji, Jalal Mahmud, Jilin Chen, Jeffrey Nichols, and Michelle X. Zhou
Hedding, Kylah J.
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
Kline, Susan L.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
Olive, Andrea, Ashlie B. Delshad
Pang, Bo and Lillian Lee
Saint-Dizier, Patrick and Manfred Stede
Thompson, Geoff, and Ye Yiyun
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
Van Eemeren, Frans H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans
Viet-An Nguyen, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik
Viet-An Nguyen, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Philip Resnik, and Kristina Miler
Walker, Marilyn A., Pranav Anand, Robert Abbott, and Ricky Grant
Cited by 5 other publications
Budzynska, Katarzyna, Marcin Koszowy & Martín Pereira-Fariña
Lewiński, Marcin & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.