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.
2017 “The Communicative Work of Organizations in Shaping Argumentative Realities”. Philosophy & Technology, 30(2): 191–208.
Aakhus, Mark & Marcin Lewiński
2017Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation, 31(1), 179–207.
Aakhus, Mark, Paul Ziek and Punit Dadlani
2013 “Argumentation in large, complex practices”. In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argument 11 (pp. 1–15). Windsor, ON.
Cano-Basave, Amparo Elizabeth and Yulan He
2016 “A study of the impact of persuasive argumentation in political debates”. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1405–1413.
1976Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1): 20–32.
Gumperz, John J.
1982Discourse strategies. Vol. 11. Cambridge University Press.
Hedding, Kylah J.
2017Sources and Framing of Fracking: A Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage in North Carolina, New York, and Pennsylvania, Environmental Communication 11(3): 370–385.
Hymes, Dell
1964A perspective for linguistic anthropology. Voice of America. Lawrence Erlbaum.
2015 “Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice.” Argumentation 29(3): 243–263.
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.
Kline, Susan L.
1979 “Toward a contemporary linguistic interpretation of the concept of stasis.” Argumentation and Advocacy 16 (2): 95–103.
Lakoff, George
2010Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1): 70–81.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Mark Aakhus
2014Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation, 28(2): 161–185.
Moens, Marie-Francine
2017 “Argumentation mining: How can a machine acquire common sense and world knowledge?.” Argument & Computation: 1–14.
Musi, Elena
2016 “Strategies of objectification in opinion articles: the case of evidentials.” In Proceedings of the OSSA Conference ‘Argumentation, Objectivity and Bias’, Windsor 18th-21thMay 2016.
Musi, Elena, and Mark Aakhus
2018 “Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining.” Argumentation, 32(3): 397–430.
Olive, Andrea, Ashlie B. Delshad
2017Fracking and Framing: A Comparative Analysis of Media Coverage of Hydraulic Fracturing in Canadian and US Newspapers. Environmental Communication 11(6): 784–799.
Plantin, Christian
2010 “Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives.” Verbum 22(1): 31–51.
Pustejovsky, James
1991 “The generative lexicon.” Computational linguistics 17 (4): 409–441.
Saint-Dizier, Patrick and Manfred Stede
2017 “Knowledge-driven argument mining based on the qualia structure.” Argument & Computation: 1–18.
Saint-Dizier, Patrick
2017 “Using Question-Answering Techniques to Implement a Knowledge-Driven Argument Mining Approach.” In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, 85–90.
Thompson, Geoff, and Ye Yiyun
1991 “Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers.” Applied linguistics 121: 365–382.
Xie, Boyi, Rebecca J. Passonneau, Leon Wu, and Germán G. Creamer
2013 “Semantic frames to predict stock price movement.” In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 873–883.
Cited by
Cited by 8 other publications
Budzynska, Katarzyna, Marcin Koszowy & Martín Pereira-Fariña
2021. Associating Ethos with Objects: Reasoning from Character of Public Figures to Actions in the World. Argumentation 35:4 ► pp. 519 ff.
Pereira-Fariña, Martín, Marcin Koszowy & Katarzyna Budzynska
2022. ‘It was Never Just About the Statue’: Ethos of historical figures in public debates on contested cultural objects. Discourse & Society 33:2 ► pp. 193 ff.
Rodrigues, Soledade, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. 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.