Argumentation Theory Research Articles

Mismatch between Null Arguments and Their Apparent Antecedents, and Its Implications on the Theory of Null Arguments

Mismatch between Null Arguments and Their Apparent Antecedents, and Its Implications on the Theory of Null Arguments

Argumentation in police-suspect interactions in Ibadan, Nigeria

In the Nigerian context, studies on police interrogation have acknowledged that investigating police officers (IPOs) wield power during police-suspect interactions (PSIs). We argue that power is not solely wielded by the IPOs during interrogation sessions; the suspect, who is often considered as a lesser participant during interrogation session, adopts argumentation to contest stances with IPOs. This study examines the rationale behind IPOs’ and suspects’ arguments in PSIs with a view to describing the implications of such arguments for power relations in PSIs. The study adopts insights from Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectal theory of argumentation (PTA). The study adopts a qualitative research design. Data for the study come from 12 interrogation sessions on cases of attempted murder, rape, felony and theft, tape-recorded at the Oyo State Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Department (SCIID), Ìyágankú, Ibadan. While IPOs argue by posing a positive self, developing themes around cases, discouraging denials and retaining suspects’ attention, suspects on the other hand argue to affirm positive selves and object justification, counter IPOs’ stances and create extraneous details to distract IPOs. The study posits that argument is a veritable discourse tool for negotiating power in PSIs.

Convincing in Pragma-Dialectics: A Critical Reassessment

AbstractWhat does it mean to convince? In the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, convincing is done by arguments. The perlocutionary act of convincing is fundamentally related to the illocutionary act of arguing. I propose a critical reassessment of this relationship. The arguing-convincing pair presents conceptual difficulties, I argue, both in the pragmatic description based on felicity conditions and in the dialectical one based on intersubjective procedures. To tackle these problems, I develop a proposal that takes the speakers’ non-verbal interaction with evidence, as opposed to their verbal interaction with one another, as the basis for understanding the resolution of differences of opinion. The proposal is compatible with the pragma-dialectical theory, provided some methodological adjustments are conceded.

LA CYBER-CULTURE: L’IDENTITÉ À TRAVERS LES ÉCRANS BLEUS, ANALYSE DES DISCOURS PROVERBIAUX SUR INSTAGRAM

In the speed of light, digital has invaded our lives, and social networks have become an essential tool of expression and exchange for the majority of citizens of the world, the author Moulessehoul Mouhamed who has always been on the lookout of modernity and new technologies is hardly an exception. This research focuses on the contentious form of discourse in digital spaces. It is more precisely a multidisciplinary analysis: identity, polyphonic and argumentative of this kind of discourse according to the Scandinavian vision of polyphony as well as argumentative theory. Sententious statements serve as support for a personal opinion: to invoke a proverb, a saying or a Koranic verse in one’s speech is to legitimize one’s remarks by opting for other voices which are authoritative on the interlocutor, on the one hand , and to place the latter in a precise discursive framework which conditions its interpretation of the discourse on the other hand. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to emphasize the socio-cultural aspect which remains omnipresent on blue screens by manifesting itself in many representations, despite the rise and development of discourses and ways of expression in the digital age.

An Overview of Explainable AI Studies in the Prediction of Sepsis Onset and Sepsis Mortality.

Explainable artificial intelligence (AI) focuses on developing models and algorithms that provide transparent and interpretable insights into decision-making processes. By elucidating the reasoning behind AI-driven diagnoses and treatment recommendations, explainability can gain the trust of healthcare experts and assist them in difficult diagnostic tasks. Sepsis is characterized as a serious condition that happens when the immune system of the body has an extreme response to an infection, causing tissue and organ damage and leading to death. Physicians face challenges in diagnosing and treating sepsis due to its complex pathogenesis. This work aims to provide an overview of the recent studies that propose explainable AI models in the prediction of sepsis onset and sepsis mortality using intensive care data. The general findings showed that explainable AI can provide the most significant features guiding the decision-making process of the model. Future research will investigate explainability through argumentation theory using intensive care data focused on sepsis patients.

Same Arguments, Different Outcomes: Struggles Over Private School Funding in Alberta and Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT I compare arguments mobilized for and against a policy to publicly fund private schools, including religious private schools, in Alberta and Ontario, Canada, and highlight how the arguments reflect each province’s historical, ideological, and social contexts. Grounded in Maarten Hajer’s argumentative discourse theory and based on findings from argumentative discourse analyses of 275 media articles, submissions to nine parliamentary committee meetings, and 14 interviews, I show how actors with disparate interests and values formed discourse coalitions as they pursued their policy preference by mobilizing one of two storylines: (1) public funds are for public schools or (2) private schools deserve public funds. The findings demonstrate that policy supporters and opponents mobilized the same arguments in both provinces between 1990 and 2020 with opposing outcomes. I conclude by highlighting aspects of the provinces’ historical, social, and discursive contexts that help explain these different outcomes and consider the effects of Alberta’s policy to fund private schools with public funds on enrollment and equity.

Теория аргументации в России: опыт реконструкции традиции

The author considers the study of the history of developing argumentation prob­lems in Russia as an urgent task and contribution to the development of the the­ory of argumentation corresponding the present challenges. The article presents a general view of the theory of argumentation as one of the programs of “axial time” in the history of humankind – realizing, first of all, the ideas of Aris­totelian “Rhetoric”. The author interprets Russian intellectual culture as one of the heirs of ancient Greek and explores the prerequisites and circumstances of the formation of the theory of argumentation as a research area in the USSR. Special attention is paid to the role that logic played in this case. The author in­sists that it was the maintenance of traditional logic positions in Soviet education in the middle of the XX century that led to the interpretation by domestic scien­tists of the theory of argumentation as having logic as a basis. This was a signi­ficant difference between the Soviet (and Russian) approach from the Western European one. The last was formed in conditions when the mathematization of logic led to the displacement of traditional logic from the field of research and education. This factor explains the opposition of argumentation to proof that was stressed by Ch. Perelman and his followers. Perelman proceeded from the inter­pretation of logical proof as a sequence of formulas constructed according to cer­tain rules. Considering the discussion by Russian philosophers and philologists of the question of the relationship between the theory of argumentation and rhetoric, the author of the article evaluates the idea of “argumentorics” put for­ward by V.N. Bryushinkin at the beginning of this century as very promising. The author shows that the rhetorical teaching of M.V. Lomonosov, set out in the treatise “A brief guide to eloquence. The first book, which contains rhetoric…” has every reason to be understood as an “argumentoric” theory. The article was prepared for the 70th anniversary of the Department of Philoso­phy for Humanities at Lomonosov Moscow State University

Рассуждение о соединении аргументации с риторикой

The article discusses the position that rhetoric occupies in Russian universities today. The current situation in which rhetoric is being forced out of teaching and research at the faculties of the humanities and being replaced by the theory of ar­gumentation is proposed to be regarded as a temporary injustice, which can be recast either through turning on to Perelman’s New Rhetoric or through the work in the spirit of the pragma-dialectics approach, which pays enough at­tention to rhetoric. This article proposes another mode to reverse rhetoric and to conjunct it with argumentation theory, which tends to be the most appropriate of all. It consists in viewing arguments not as pseudo-syllogisms, with premises, a conclusion and a connection between them, but as stories that embrace three elements: first, an initial state of affairs, then an action that is applied to this ini­tial state, and finally, some other state, that emerges from that one due to the im­plemented action. To consider arguments as three-part story-like structures means to have an ability to use in the analysis and the evaluation of persuasive tests and speeches the entire arsenal of rhetoric and argumentation, since the questions that a story raises are not limited to questions about the nature of the relationship between the initial and final states (as it holds in basic argumentation theories) and extend into the characters of the narrator, the story “cast”, and the listeners, as well as their reactions that the story evokes, including those that are not only affective. With this view, the content of rhetoric restores its relevancy, and the dis­cipline itself becomes again desired in the educational process and in society

Argument in religious studies at GCSE: a collaborative developmental research project

ABSTRACT This paper describes a developmental research project that started from the desire amongst several religious education teachers across different schools to work collaboratively to improve their teaching of argumentation. It specifically focuses on GCSE religious studies examinations in England. We were particularly interested in how students express their own arguments in written examination essays, which have specific requirements. The intention was to think more deeply about what is meant by argument without resorting to pure philosophy, and thereby develop our pedagogy in teaching these skills through deeper reflection, learning and experiment in the classroom, as well as sharing our experience. Working with a researcher, we adopted a particular theory of argumentation, from Toulmin, and then heuristically developed techniques to refine our practice. Through collaborative self-study with a researcher, we draw on qualitative data to consider both what strategies were developed and how our collaboration supported our professional development. The strategies for teaching argumentation were through simplification and the use of metaphor. Collaboration was through inter-school support in developing and trying out new techniques. Significantly, we found that argumentation could be developed without explicitly teaching philosophy.

Hermagoras of Temno and the ‘Commonplaces’ (T 17 Woerther)

This paper offers a new interpretation of a passage from Theon’s progymnasmatic manual (120.13‑20 Sp.), which is traditionally included among Hermagoras of Temnos’ ‘fragments’ (T 17 W.). Based on the text preserved by Theon’s Armenian tradition and on the comparison with the parallel sources, the following conclusions can be drawn: (a) the ‘fragment’ consists of two sections, which must be considered separately; (b) while the first part can be prudently linked to Hermagoras of Temnos only, the second one is certainly attributable to him and – if correctly contextualised – may reveal some interesting details about his theory of argumentation.

Exploring the competency-based approach curriculum in secondary education in Mali with the core players’ experiences

ABSTRACT Curricular reforms oftentimes cause more problems than they solve. Teachers’ being kept out of curricular activities is one main reason for a reform to plummet. In this qualitative study, we examined the Malian curricular policy from two aspects—reform and teaching and learning. Guided by Fischer’s argumentative approach theory, this analysis involved 18 participants. While officials and principals were interviewed, teachers were both interviewed and observed. We tried to elaborate on the power of arguments to further principals’ and teachers’ concerns and needs in curriculum related tasks. We discovered that CBA reform has the potential to harness learner’s chances to learn better. The identified challenges like the intricate dialogue between authorities and teachers need to be lifted to unlock the full potentiality of the reform and achieve goals. We also found that advocating for teachers’ inclusion in curriculum-making remains as important as upskilling teachers’ competence to contribute to curriculum processes. (Re-)Designing standardized textbooks can address the issues of curriculum content overload and concept opacity. This can also help unify practices and align content with contextual norms. To curb congestion, a typical phenomenon in resources-scarce areas like Mali, more classes or schools should mushroom.

A discontinuous Galerkin method for a coupled Stokes–Biot problem

The interaction between fluid and poroelastic structure is a complex problem that couples the Stokes equations with the Biot system. In this work, we rewrite the poroelastic equations using three fields (displacement, fluid pressure, and total pressure) to account for locking phenomenon in fluid–structure interaction and the oscillation of numerical solutions. Then, in order to solve the coupled system, we use the weighted discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for spatial discretization and propose a semi-discrete scheme. In addition, we propose a fully discrete scheme using the backward Euler’s method for temporal discretization. In the framework of the Galerkin approximation, the stability and errors of semi- and fully discrete schemes are analyzed using the theory of differential algebraic equations and weak compactness arguments. Through numerical experiments, we validate the theoretical rate of convergence, explain the behavior of the method in modeling the interaction between surface and groundwater hydrological systems, investigate the robustness of the method with respect to physical parameters, and simulate channel filtering. In particular, the numerical results are free of locking features, reducing non-physical numerical oscillations.

Passive without morphology

Abstract This paper examines the syntax of a novel construction I call Passive without Morphology (PwM) constructions in Bùlì and the question of whether they have projected external arguments. The main proposal that I argue for is that PwM constructions in all their occurrences possess projected implicit external arguments. The discussions presented in the paper provide empirical as well as theoretical support for the classification of passives (Keenan and Dryer 2007) and a theory of passives and implicit arguments (Collins 2021). This paper argues that the internal argument moves to Spec,TP in two steps: first, the VP moves into Spec, VoiceP and from there the internal argument raises to Spec,TP (Collins 2005, 2021).

And That’s a Fact: A Rhetorical Perspective on the Role of Fact-Checkers

ABSTRACT Fact-checking initiatives have rapidly expanded worldwide with the overall aim of assessing the veracity of factual claims made in public. In this paper, we critique how the objectivity norm informs the current role perception of fact-checkers and suggest ways to reinterpret this perception through rhetorical argumentation theory. First, we point to research literature on fact-checking as a site in which role perceptions of fact-checkers and epistemological ideals are represented, (re)created and contested, marking out an objectivist role perception. Second, we highlight recent contributions from scholars who, like us, have noticed tensions between the objectivist role perception and role performances of fact-checkers and constructively recommended different ways of working around these tensions. In dialogue with these suggestions, we propose that rhetorical argumentation theory can be considered a supplementary resource to further advance epistemological discussions on the role perception of fact-checkers. In addition, the vocabulary from rhetorical argumentation theory holds potential for methodological operationalisation to guide the future role performances of fact-checkers. Finally, to develop our suggestion further, we propose a new research agenda embracing action-oriented research as an integrated way of developing fact-checkers’ role and practise together with practitioners.

Визуализация аргументации, глубокое разногласие и решение спора (на примере дискуссии о домогательствах)

Глубокое разногласие – это абнормальное расхождение во мнениях в споре. Рассмотрение подобного расхождения, развернувшегося в 2018 году в российских СМИ, при помощи методики, основанной на современных концепциях анализа аргументации, новой диалектике и логико-когнитивной теории аргументации, продемонстрировало потенциал цифровой визуализации, исключило интерпретацию решения как убедительного для сторон в содержательном смысле, но указало на компромиссный путь урегулирования разногласия как наиболее перспективный в условиях связи домогательств (харассмента) с дискриминацией, размытости социальных границ допустимости ухаживаний и отсутствия юридического определения домогательств как недопустимого поведения. We aim at demonstrating the potential of digital visualization of argumentation in searching and defining dispute resolution, and studying argumentation in the discussion (launched by a harassment conflict in 2018) with the help of the conceptions of the new dialectics and the logical-cognitive theory of argumentation. The digital visualization is done using the OVA software. The conflict and the discussion revealed legal, moral, and social aspects of the harassment problem in Russia, which affected the dispute resolution. At the first stage of the discussion analysis, the visualization allows discovering and reconstructing the arguments in relation to the parties’ divergence of opinions, and results in an argumentation map of the dispute, by means of which we establish the dispute outcomes at the second stage and determine the solution at the third stage. The advantage of the proposed method lies in the algorithm for determining the resolution of the dispute, to which digital visualization makes a significant contribution, acting as a convenient alternative of formalization. It allows identifying features of the argument, enhances the precision of argument evaluation by escaping from the risk of remaining indistinguishable in formulaic notation or flowcharts. The arguments resistant to the counterarguments form up the set of dispute outcomes, the subset of which convey the dispute resolution with respect to the type of dispute and the positions of the parties. The arguments are evaluated as sound or unsound by their replies to the critical questions formulated in relation to their structure, varying regarding the deductive, inductive, or plausible arguments. We reconstructed the discussion as two disputes about questions A: Did MP violate the norms of behavior by speaking or acting against the journalists? and B: Are actions like MP’s behavior harassments? We grouped the opinions of the participants in the discussion into four points of view: A1 – he did not violate, A2 – he violated, B3 – they are not, B4 – they are; identified three arguments in defense of each of A1, B3, and B4, four arguments in defense of A2; and visualized the parties’ positions and the outcomes of the disputes on three diagrams. The solution to the dispute A + B was the subset of four arguments that ensured the victory of A1 + B4: MP did not violate the norms of behavior for the lack of evidence of accusations, and this was not in his nature; harassments like MP’s actions are unacceptable, and since signs of courtships can be interpreted in different ways, accusations of indecent behavior must be brought and investigated immediately. The inconsistency in the dispute resolution in favor of A1 + B4 (MP did not violate the norms of behavior + such actions are harassments), convincing for the parties in the technical sense of the algorithm we employed, highlighted a deep disagreement between the parties about the admissibility of courtship. A deep disagreement is an abnormal divergence of opinions in a dispute, it ruled out the interpretation of the decision as convincing for the parties in a meaningful sense, but indicated a persuasive compromise way of resolving the disagreement.

Attack principles in sequent-based argumentation theory

Abstract Attack principles have been introduced in semi-abstract argumentation frameworks and, in the present work, we interpret them in sequent-based argumentation frameworks. Thus, we investigate the role of minimality and consistency of the support set of an argument. Through the notion of preservation of strength, we introduce a formal criterion to sort out the attack principles; isolate the more “acceptable” ones, i.e. those easier to justify; and recover a new argumentative semantics for the non-classical logic that arises from dropping the rules $(\neg , r)$, $(\land , r)$ and $(\supset , l)$ from Gentzen’s classical sequent calculus for classical logic $\textsf{LK}$.

Wittgenstein’s Ignorance of Argumentation Theory and Toulmin’s Rehabilitation of Wittgenstein

The author- following his own research on the subject- argues that Wittgenstein ignores argumentation theory and in general, the problems of rhetoric and argumentation. From this point of view, he frames Stephen Toulmin’s reading of Wittgenstein, arguing that the British philosopher- who was a student of the Austrian- advocates precisely the same thesis. He explains that this happens in a very peculiar (rhetorical) context on Toulmin’s part; a context in which, in essence, Wittgenstein’s philosophy is being rehabilitated.

Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation

Cryptocurrency forensics have become standard tools for law enforcement. Their basic idea is to deanonymise cryptocurrency transactions to identify the people behind them. Cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques are often based on premises that largely remain implicit, especially in legal practice. On the one hand, this implicitness complicates investigations. On the other hand, it can have far-reaching consequences for the rights of those affected. Argumentation schemes could remedy this untenable situation by rendering the underlying premises more transparent. Additionally, they can aid in critically evaluating the probative value of any results obtained by cryptocurrency deanonymisation techniques. In the argumentation theory and AI community, argumentation schemes are influential as they state the implicit premises for different types of arguments. Through their critical questions, they aid the argumentation participants in critically evaluating arguments. We specialise the notion of argumentation schemes to legal reasoning about cryptocurrency deanonymisation. Furthermore, we demonstrate the applicability of the resulting schemes through an exemplary real-world case. Ultimately, we envision that using our schemes in legal practice can solidify the evidential value of blockchain investigations, as well as uncover and help to address uncertainty in the underlying premises—thus contributing to protecting the rights of those affected by cryptocurrency forensics.

What Makes an Argument Strong?

It is widely believed that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of argumentation is vulnerable to the charge of relativism. This paper provides a more charitable interpretation of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s normative views, one that properly considers the historical trajectory of their work and a wider range of texts than existing interpretations. It is argued that their views are better characterized as a form of “contrastivism about arguments” than any kind relativism. This more accurate depiction contributes to ongoing efforts to revive interest in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s work as well as build bridges with trends in contemporary argumentation theory.

A Pragmatic Analysis of Deliberation in Legal Setting

Deliberation is an increasingly used concept in Argumentation Theory and Linguistic Analysis. But only recently research combined empirical and conceptual tool-boxes from these disciplines for the study of deliberative discourse. The aim of this article is to present a discursive analysis of deliberation as a genre using the relational pragmatic analysis of texts. In particular, we want to see whether different features of deliberation genre map onto relational pragmatic dimension of texts. To do so, authors analyze, in the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), the relational discourse structure of legal speeches of argumentative micro-texts written by citizens participating in a series of deliberative mini-publics. Results suggest that genre affects the relational to pragmatic analysis of texts and that we could analyze this effect in RST. Finally, we present, to our knowledge, the first annotated corpus-based genre analysis of the relational pragmatic dimension of argumentative micro texts.