Construction Of Arguments Research Articles

Modelling verb selection within argument structure constructions

ABSTRACTThis article looks into the nature of cognitive associations between verbs and argument structure constructions (ASCs). Existing research has shown that distributional and semantic factors affect speakers' choice of verbs in ASCs. A formal account of this theory has been proposed by Ellis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. [(2014a). The processing of verb–argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 55–98. doi:10.1515/cog-2013-0031], who show that the frequency of production of verbs within an ASC can be predicted from joint verb–construction frequency, contingency of verb–construction mapping, and prototypicality of verb meaning. We simulate the verb production task using a computational model of ASC learning, and compare its performance to the available human data. To account for individual variation between speakers and for order of verb preference, we carry out two additional analyses. We then compare a number of prediction models with different variables, and propose a refined account of verb selection within ASCs: overall verb frequency is an additional factor affecting verb selection, while the effects of joint frequency and contingency may be combined rather than independent.

Stimulating Reflection and Self-correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches

A large body of research in cognitive science differentiates human reasoning into two types: fast, intuitive, and emotional “System 1” thinking, and slower, more reflective “System 2” reasoning. According to this research, human reasoning is by default fast and intuitive, but that means that it is prone to error and biases that cloud our judgments and decision making. To improve the quality of reasoning, critical thinking education should develop strategies to slow it down and to become more reflective. The goal of such education should be to enable and motivate students to identify weaknesses, gaps, biases, and limiting perspectives in their own reasoning and to correct them. This contribution discusses how this goal could be achieved with regard to reasoning that involves the construction of arguments; or more precisely: how computer-supported argument visualization (CSAV) tools could be designed that support reflection on the quality of arguments and their improvement. Three types of CSAV approaches are distinguished that focus on reflection and self-correcting reasoning. The first one is to trigger reflection by confronting the user with specific questions that direct attention to critical points. The second approach uses templates that, on the one hand, provide a particular structure to reason about an issue by means of arguments and, on the other, include prompts to enter specific items. And a third approach is realized in specifically designed user guidance (“scripts”) that attempts to trigger reflection and self-correction. These types of approaches are currently realized only in very few CSAV tools. In order to inform the future development of what I call reflection tools, this article discusses the potential and limitations of these types and tools with regard to five explanations of the observation that students hardly ever engage in substantial revisions of what they wrote: a lack of strategies how to do it; cognitive overload; certain epistemic beliefs; myside bias; and over-confidence in the quality of one’s own reasoning. The question is: To what degree can each of the CSAV approaches and tools address these five potential obstacles to reflection and self-correction?

A Philosophical Reflection about Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

This article discusses the philosophical foundations of business ethics and corporate social responsibility, from a critical conception of the approaches commonly used, their assumptions and their justifications. The paper presents a theoretical and philosophical reflection, developed in order to question and appoint alternative solutions to the weaknesses of the most common justifications of corporate social responsibility. These discussions, according to the argumentative construction of this article, culminates in the proposition of four elements to be considered in a stronger debate about the theme: the ethical personality of organizations; ethics community; the liberty; and the identity between ethics and interest. These elements bring in themselves a different agenda for the debate on responsible business, corporate responsibility, business ethics and social ethics. By considering the ideas proposed in this article, management professionals and students, as well as researchers from the general areas of management will have differentiated and complementary references to the pre-existing ones to a understanding better a more consistent and well justified definition of an ethical and socially responsible company, going beyond current and sometimes fragile justifications which are, sometimes, social and academically discredited, as is the case with justification of the strategies of social responsibility from the argument that it generates profits for companies.

Introduction to the new Editors

For a new editorial team, Research in Education appears to provide a clear and obvious mandate – to publish challenging, well-written and theoretically innovative contributions to ongoing debates in Education, as well as generating fresh ideas and outlining new directions in Education research. Yet when one begins to think seriously about these three seemingly simple words, complexity arises. The UK government’s Research Excellence Framework defines research as ‘a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared’ (http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/ GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf). But while few would disagree with the importance of notions of originality, significance and rigour in relation to research, what is missing here is a sense of how research is also a rhetorical activity grounded in the use of particular assumptions and techniques in order to construct arguments that will be deemed authoritative and persuasive by particular audiences. Such a perspective foregrounds the differential and contested nature of research, highlighting how practices and assumptions that are deemed legitimate in one community of scholars, such as an emphasis on methodological rigour and transparency as a guarantee of research validity, may be deeply problematic to another community, that, for example, embraces a poststructuralist perspective foregrounding the pervasive and inescapable element of power relations as part and parcel of any claims to knowledge.

Teaming up and mixing methods: collaborative and cross-disciplinary work in corpus research on phraseology

Inspired by my positive experiences gained as a member of cross-disciplinary research teams, this paper explores the value of collaborative work in corpus linguistics. I discuss selected results from three studies that showcase research on phraseology: a study that attempts to measure formulaic language in first- and second-language writing, a study on attended/unattended this and its patterns in student writing, and a study on speaker knowledge and use of verb–argument constructions. My collaborators on these studies include a psycholinguist, a computational linguist, a cognitive linguist and a genre analysis expert. This paper highlights the ways in which combining research methods from different fields can be beneficial to research outcomes in phraseology, and calls for more collaboration between corpus linguists and scholars from neighbouring disciplines.

Classroom community and discourse: How argumentation emerges during a Socratic circle

Literacy and language development is a central aspect of educational theory and practice. One area of literacy and rowlanguage research that has had a lot of attention is dialogic teaching (Bakhtin, 1984; Freire, 1970; Murphey, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013). However, there is limited research on how high school students use their classroom discourse to construct meaning, especially in argumentation. The purpose of this data analysis is to investigate the emergence of argumentation literacy in a Socratic circle. Socratic circles, a literacy practice consisting of two concentric circles of students focused around a piece of text, are used to provide students with the opportunity to co-construct meaning through classroom dialogue (Copeland, 2005). The emergence and construction of argumentation is analyzed by applying discourse analysis to a video of a high school classroom,. Findings from this analysis reveal that through the use of exploratory talk, three discourse patterns emerge that are in line with argumentation practices: (1) generalizations, (2) communicative struggles, and (3) co-construction of ideas. Results of the analysis are discussed to inform theory and instruction on dialogic teaching and the use of Socratic circles to develop argumentation-related forms of literacy.

Examining the Use of Talk and Writing for Students' Development of Scientific Conceptual Knowledge Through Constructing and Critiquing Arguments

ABSTRACTThis study developed an analytic framework consisting of four patterns of talk and writing that can support students' engagement in construction and critique: Talk only, writing only, use of talk and writing in sequence, and use of talk and writing simultaneously. This study aimed to examine how each pattern supports students' development of scientific knowledge through the construction and critique of arguments and what cognitive functions are associated with each pattern. To trace students' knowledge development over time using the four patterns, three students were selected as target subjects. Data were analyzed using two approaches: (1) in-depth analysis of a Knowledge Development Trajectory and (2) constant comparative method. This study highlights elementary students' capability of engaging in argumentation that promotes their scientific knowledge development when provided with proper opportunities, facilitation, and time to recognize that talk and writing can be used as epistemic tools for both constructing and critiquing arguments.

Introduction to Special Issue on Applied Epistemology

This collection then, in addition to contributing to some ongoing debates in applied epistemology, also aspires to be something of a call to arms. We hope that it will demonstrate that applied epistemology is an important and under-acknowledged field of philosophical inquiry. One thing that seems to have hindered the recognition of applied epistemology as a subject on a par with applied ethics is the fact that some of the (very few) people who work on it have an unnecessarily narrow conception of its scope. One very influential definition of the subject is given by Larry Laudan: Applied epistemology in general is the study of whether systems of investigation that purport to be seeking the truth are well engineered to lead to true beliefs about the world. Theorists of knowledge, as epistemologists are sometimes known, routinely examine truth-seeking practices like science and mathematics to find out whether they are capable of delivering the goods they seek. Essential though such an enterprise undoubtedly is, the truth test conception of applied epistemology that it delivers is surely too narrow. The respects in which it is narrow can be brought out by comparison with applied ethics. First, the truth test conception focuses exclusively on one epistemic good – truth – when there are other pertinent epistemic values worth focusing on, such as the successful weighing of different kinds of values or evidence, and such as understanding, including social understanding that is fundamentally interpretive. Thus, the truth test conception might be compared to a conception of applied ethics that focuses exclusively on a single ethical good, such as happiness. Of course there are ethical theories, most notably utilitarianism, which do this, but even advocates of utilitarianism do not usually think that applied ethics is just a matter of calculating total (or average) happiness in this case or that. Instead, utilitarians, like Peter Singer, will usually, when doing applied ethics, try to construct arguments that will be persuasive to as broad an audience as possible, and not to just his fellow utilitarians.

Digital evidence, ‘absence’ of data and ambiguous patterns of reasoning

In this paper we discuss the use of digital data by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in a recent case of attempted homicide. We use this case to examine drawbacks for the defense when the presentation of scientific evidence is partial, especially when the only perspective mentioned is that of the prosecution. We tackle this discussion at two distinct levels. First, we pursue an essentially non-technical presentation of the topic by drawing parallels between the court's summing up of the case and flawed patterns of reasoning commonly seen in other forensic disciplines, such as DNA and particle traces (e.g., gunshot residues). Then, we propose a formal analysis of the case, using elements of probability and graphical probability models, to justify our main claim that the partial presentation of digital evidence poses a risk to the administration of justice in that it keeps vital information from the defense. We will argue that such practice constitutes a violation of general principles of forensic interpretation as established by forensic science literature and current recommendations by forensic science interest groups (e.g., the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes). Finally, we posit that argument construction and analysis using formal methods can help replace digital evidence appropriately into context and thus support a sound evaluation of the evidence.

Argument construction in understanding noncovalent interactions: a comparison of two argumentation frameworks

Argument construction is a valuable ability for explaining scientific phenomena and introducing argumentation skills as part of a curriculum can greatly enhance student understanding by promoting self-reflection on the topic under investigation. This article aims to use argument construction as a technique to support an activity designed to improve student understanding of noncovalent interactions. Two theoretical argumentation frameworks were used and compared in order to determine the most effective for use in the developed activity.

The role of green chemistry activities in fostering secondary school students' understanding of acid–base concepts and argumentation skills

In a world where environmental degradation is taking on alarming levels, understanding, and acting to minimize, the individual environmental impact is an important goal for many science educators. In this study, a green chemistry curriculum—combining chemistry experiments with everyday, environmentally friendly substances with a student-centered approach that includes student–student discussion—was tested for its potential to increase the understanding of acid–base concepts and argumentative skills. A quasi-experimental design was chosen intended to take into account teacher/school nested effects. The study involved three classes of 150 16 year old Form Four students (1 experimental,N= 50; 2 control,N= 100) from two Schools A and B serving students from the same sociocultural and economic backgrounds taught by two teachers (Teacher A in School A taught 1 experimental and 1 control; Teacher B in School B taught 1 control). An ANCOVA with a pre-test as a covariate showed a statistically significant treatment effect as measured by an acid–base concept understanding test. Additionally, qualitative analysis of an Argumentation Skill Test (AST) shows that the experimental students used higher levels of argumentation skills following treatment than their peers in the two control classes. Implications are discussed for integrating green chemistry into the secondary school chemistry curriculum to teach the content on acid–base and green chemistry as a tool to assist the construction of arguments.

Evidential Reasoning for Forensic Readiness

To learn from the past, we analyse 1,088 computer as a target judgements for evidential reasoning by extracting four case elements: decision, intent, fact, and evidence. Analysing the decision element is essential for studying the scale of sentence severity for cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Examining the intent element can facilitate future risk assessment. Analysing the fact element can enhance an organization's capability of analysing criminal activities for future offender profiling. Examining the evidence used against a defendant from previous judgements can facilitate the preparation of evidence for upcoming legal disclosure. Follow the concepts of argumentation diagrams, we develop an automatic judgement summarizing system to enhance the accessibility of judgements and avoid repeating past mistakes. Inspired by the feasibility of extracting legal knowledge for argument construction and employing grounds of inadmissibility for probability assessment, we conduct evidential reasoning of kernel traces for forensic readiness. We integrate the narrative methods from attack graphs/languages for preventing confirmation bias, the argumentative methods from argumentation diagrams for constructing legal arguments, and the probabilistic methods from Bayesian networks for comparing hypotheses.

(Des)cortesía y argumentación en el discurso de políticos (relaciones México-Cuba)

Diplomacy demands from the actors to comply with certain rules and codes to solve conflicts and to relate countries economically, culturally and politically. Therefore, the use of strategies of politeness is transcendent for these actors. In this paper, we examine transversely the processes of (im)politeness and face. We studied a telephone conversation between diplomats from Mexico and Cuba from a socio-pragmatic and rhetorical-discursive perspective to examine the social representations and the strategies of the political discourse under the premises of the French School of discourse analysis and reviewing the processes of interaction that allow to construct arguments and arguments in opposition.

Competing Sociological Diagnoses of Contemporary Times: Potentials of the RISU Conceptual Framework

The global financial and economic crisis caught social scientists and decision makers by surprise. They did not possess explanatory and predictive conceptual frameworks needed for coping with the crisis. This finding provokes critical analysis of available sociological concepts and constructive argumentation in three steps. First, disparities are identified between influential diagnoses of global processes and the processes themselves. Second , the question arises: How to conceptually reduce the global over-complexity in order to reach a reliable diagnosis of our times? Third , the suggested solution focuses on the substantiation, development and application of mutually connected concepts of four global trends: upgrading the rationality of organizations , individualization , spread of instrumental activism and universalization of value-normative systems (the RISU conceptual framework) . The claim is that these trends decisively shape the contemporary social reality and will continue to profoundly shape it in the future. The conclusion reads that the RISU conceptual framework offers analytical tools for making the global, regional and societal over-complexity transparent for descriptions, explanations, forecasting and potentially efficient management of social development. The claim is substantiated by applying the conceptual framework in the analysis of the housing crisis in the United States.

Identifying paralogisms in two ethnically different contexts at university level / Identificación de paralogismos en dos contextos universitarios diferenciados étnicamente

Although educational researchers have long tried to answer the question ‘Who reasons well?’, little has been done in regards to the influence of culture on argumentative reasoning quality. Among the factors that have been related with the construction of valid arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals by adults are: explicit argument training, task instructions and prior knowledge. No clear evidence exists regarding the influence of the ethnical background on the flaws or fallacies of reasoning. The present study applies the recent theory of paraschemes as a tool to identify university students’ paralogisms in a common argument-mapping task on everyday issues in two different cultural contexts: one European (Spain) and one Middle Eastern (United Arab Emirates). Our analysis showed that the influence of ethnical background was not statistically significant regarding the type and amount of paralogisms committed. On the contrary, the participants’ study major, being business or education, was shown to influence the production of argument fallacies. Implications of these findings for higher education are discussed.

Public Relations vs. Advertising

This study aims to examine and understand the effectiveness and credibility of advertising and public relations in the form of editorial coverage. This study involves three main groups, namely prominent practitioners in public relations and advertising as well as independent party who does not belong to either of these categories of practitioners. Guided by the Source Credibility Theory, this exploratory study emphasises on key measure of credibility in finding the overall effectiveness of public relations over advertising. Findings of this study provide ground for constructive argument on the co-relations, effectiveness, estrangement and togetherness of the much debated topic of public relations versus advertising. The main basis of the comparison is based on credibility, and the data focused on three central themes: contribution to brand knowledge and brand image, adequacy of public relations and advertising, and concerns of public relations and advertising practitioners. In short, both public relations and advertising can employ contextual strategy by working together to reach consumers in the most creative and tactical manner.

Ensino de língua portuguesa para a formação profissional na universidade: as sequências narrativas e argumentativas no gênero petição inicial

Entre as preocupações do ensino universitário encontra-se proficiência escritora dos estudantes, especialmente no que diz respeito aos gêneros específicos das diversas áreas de atuação profissional. Relativamente à formação de profissionais da área do Direito, essa questão se mostra ainda mais indispensável, visto ser a língua escrita ferramenta de trabalho para o profissional desta área. O texto apresenta reflexões sobre o ensino de escrita na Universidade voltado para a formação profissional de estudantes de Direito, focalizando o gênero Petição Inicial e o estatuto das sequências textuais narrativas na construção argumentativa desse gênero jurídico. Para tanto, apresenta algumas questões sobre proficiência em escrita (MOLITOR-LÜBBERT, 2010; KELLOGG E WHITEFORD, 2012; FAYOL, FOULIN, MAGGIO E LÉTÉ, 2012), traz uma breve explanação teórica das sequências narrativas (ADAM, 2011), conceitua o gênero Petição Inicial no escopo do Processo Civil (GRECO FILHO, 1995) e aponta algumas diretrizes a prática de escrita desse gênero na universidade.

Paleopathological rigor and differential diagnosis: Case studies involving terminology, description, and diagnostic frameworks for scurvy in skeletal remains

Diverse pathological processes can produce overlapping or even indistinguishable patterns of abnormal bone formation or destruction, representing a fundamental challenge in the understanding of ancient diseases. This paper discusses increasing rigor in differential diagnosis through the paleopathological study of scurvy. First, paleopathology’s use of descriptive terminology can strive to more thoroughly incorporate international standards of anatomical terminology. Second, improved observation and description of abnormal skeletal features can help distinguish between anemia or vitamin C deficiency. Third, use of a structured rubric can assist in establishing a more systematic, replicable, and precise decision-making process in differential diagnosis. These issues are illustrated in the study of two new cases of suspected scurvy from northern Peru. From this, it appears possible that ectocranial vascular impressions may further examined as a morphological marker of scurvy in the skeleton. Also, increased paleopathological attention to pellagra is long overdue, especially as it may produce generally comparable lesions to scurvy. This paper reflexively speaks to the process of paleopathological problem solving and the epistemology of our discipline—particularly regarding the ways in which we can continuously improve description and the construction of diagnostic arguments.

Searching for Evidence—Teaching Students to Become Effective Readers by Visualizing Information in Texts

Four reading strategies and several web tools that are effective for reading closely and identifying textual evidence are described and explained. As teacher-educators with many years of experience teaching reading and the language arts, we have found these reading strategies and web tools helpful for middle school students as they consider evidence when forming opinions and making decisions about their reading. Using close reading as our theoretical framework, the reading strategies and web tools presented here provide visual displays of evidence found in the texts that students read. These strategies are helpful for all students and especially for struggling middle school readers as they learn to read closely, think clearly, and construct arguments about evidence found in the texts they read.

Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry

Constructing scientific explanations is necessary for students to engage in scientific inquiry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of using a structured argumentation scaffold to enhance skill in constructing scientific explanations in the process of scientific inquiry. The proposed approach is designed to scaffold the following aspects of argumentation: the argumentation process, the explanation structuring, explanation construction, and explanation evaluation. A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the structured argumentation scaffold in developing skill in constructing scientific explanations and engaging in electronic dialogues. A web-based collaborative synchronous inquiry system, ASIS (Argumentative Scientific Inquiry System), was utilized to support students as they worked in groups to carry out inquiry tasks. Two intact sixth grade classes (n = 50) participated in the study. The data show that the ASIS with the structured argumentation scaffold helped students significantly improve their skills in constructing scientific explanations, make more dialogue moves for explanation and query, and use more of all four argument components. In addition, the use of warrants, one of the components of an argument, was found to be a critical variable in predicting students' competence with regard to constructing scientific explanations. The results provide references for further research and system development with regard to facilitating students' construction of scientific argumentation and explanations.