Argumentation models and their use in corpus annotation: practice, prospects, and challenges

The study of argumentation is transversal to several research domains, from philosophy to linguistics, from the law to computer science and artificial intelligence. In discourse analysis, several distinct models have been proposed to harness argumentation, each with a different focus or aim. To analyze the use of argumentation in natural language, several corpora annotation efforts have been carried out, with a more or less explicit grounding on one of such theoretical argumentation models. In fact, given the recent growing interest in argument mining applications, argument-annotated corpora are crucial to train machine learning models in a supervised way. However, the proliferation of such corpora has led to a wide disparity in the granularity of the argument annotations employed. In this paper, we review the most relevant theoretical argumentation models, after which we survey argument annotation projects closely following those theoretical models. We also highlight the main simplifications that are often introduced in practice. Furthermore, we glimpse other annotation efforts that are not so theoretically grounded but instead follow a shallower approach. It turns out that most argument annotation projects make their own assumptions and simplifications, both in terms of the textual genre they focus on and in terms of adapting the adopted theoretical argumentation model for their own agenda. Issues of compatibility among argument-annotated corpora are discussed by looking at the problem from a syntactical, semantic, and practical perspective. Finally, we discuss current and prospective applications of models that take advantage of argument-annotated corpora

The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions

This paper aims to investigate the types of source on which students base the arguments from expert opinion when used to convince their teacher and classmates to accept their standpoint during disciplinary discussions. Using the model of a critical discussion integrated with the Argumentum Model of Topics as analytical approach, a corpus of 66 arguments from expert opinion were analyzed. The results show that students in most cases refer to scholars and their scientific notions and theories as source of expertise (other-oriented argument). Less frequently, students refer to themselves and their previous personal experience as source of expertise (self-oriented argument)

Towards an authentic argumentation literacy test

A central goal of education is to improve argumentation literacy. How do we know how well this goal is achieved? Can we measure argumentation literacy? The present study is a preliminary step towards measuring the efficacy of education with regards to argumentation literacy. Tests currently in use to determine critical thinking skills are often similar to IQ-tests in that they predominantly measure logical and mathematical abilities. Thus, they may not measure the various other skills required in understanding authentic argumentation. To identify the elements of argumentation literacy, this exploratory study begins by surveying introductory textbooks within argumentation theory, critical thinking, and rhetoric. Eight main abilities have been identified. Then, the study outlines an Argumentation Literacy Test that would comprise these abilities suggested by the literature. Finally, the study presents results from a pilot of a version of such a test and discusses needs for further development