Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[1]: 18 The structures of argumentative speech, which Habermas identifies as the absence of coercive force, the mutual search for understanding, and the compelling power of the better argument, form the key features from which intersubjective rationality can make communication possible. Action undertaken by participants through a process of ...
As in this example, argumentation schemes typically recognize a variety of semantic (or substantive) relations that inference rules in classical logic ignore. [2]: 19 More than one argumentation scheme may apply to the same argument; in this example, the more complex abductive argumentation scheme may also apply.
Argumentation schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing the abstract structure of the most common types of natural arguments. [13] A typical example is the argument from expert opinion, shown below, which has two premises and a conclusion ...
In evaluating the arguments that are put forward in the argumentative discourse, the analyst should (1) check whether the discourse is free from logical and pragmatic inconsistencies, (2) determine whether the propositions put forward are acceptable, (3) evaluate whether the argumentation (can be made) logically valid, (4) check whether the ...
Rhetorical structure theory (RST) is a theory of text organization that describes relations that hold between parts of text.It was originally developed by William Mann, Sandra Thompson, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen and others at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) and defined in a 1988 paper.
There are there most basic types of semantic arguments, which have different argumentation schemes, but all modify meaning to support persuasion: argument from definition, argument to definition (as distinguished by Peter of Spain: definitio-definitum and definitum-definitio), and classification argument.
Argument mining, or argumentation mining, is a research area within the natural-language processing field. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with the aid of computer programs. [ 1 ]
In LA, arguments for and arguments against a proposition are distinct; an argument for a proposition contributes nothing to the case against it, and vice versa. Among other things, this means that LA can support contradiction – proof that an argument is true and that it is false. Arguments supporting the case for and arguments supporting the ...