This article offers a first large scale analysis of argumentative polylogues in the fracking controversy. It provides an empirical methodology 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. The prominent indicators are Taking_sides, Evidence and Reasoning. 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1075/jaic.18016.mus
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,408
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Deontic Power and Institutional Contexts.Isabela Fairclough - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):136-171.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Environmental Manifestoes.Soledade Rodrigues, Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):12-39.
Deontic Power and Institutional Contexts.Isabela Fairclough - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):136-171.
Sophistical Refutations in the Climate Change Debates.Jean Goodwin - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):40-64.
Environmental Argumentation.Marcin Lewiński & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):1-11.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Fracking Women: A Feminist Critical Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania.Kristen Abatsis McHenry - 2017 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10 (2):79-104.
Environmental Concerns in the Marcellus Shale.William Beaver - 2014 - Business and Society Review 119 (1):125-146.
Are Intuitions About Moral Relevance Susceptible to Framing Effects?James Andow - 2017 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 9 (1):115-141.
Fracking and Labquakes.Jordi Baró, Antoni Planes, Ekhard K. H. Salje & Eduard Vives - 2016 - Philosophical Magazine 96 (35):3686-3696.


Added to PP index

Total views
16 ( #623,445 of 2,420,816 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #249,143 of 2,420,816 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes