Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):112-135 (2019)
Abstract |
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 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Design Thinking in Argumentation Theory and Practice.Sally Jackson - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):243-263.
Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry.Marcin Lewiński & Mark Aakhus - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (2):161-185.
Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
Deontic Power and Institutional Contexts.Isabela Fairclough - 2019 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 8 (1):136-171.
Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining.Elena Musi & Mark Aakhus - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (3):397-430.
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.
Similar books and articles
How Should Fracking Research Be Funded?Richard J. Davies & Liam G. Herringshaw - 2016 - Research Ethics 12 (2):116-118.
The Karoo Fracking Debate: A Christian Contribution to the World Communities of Faith.A. Roger Tucker & Gerrit van Tonder - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):631-653.
Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
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.
Framing Effects in International Relations.Alex Mintz & Steven B. Redd - 2003 - Synthese 135 (2):193 - 213.
Framing Effects in International Relations.Alex Mintz & Steven Redd - 2003 - Synthese 135 (2):193-213.
Framing-Effects Approach: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique.Bertram Scheufele - 2004 - Communications 29 (4):401-428.
Dealing with Feelings: Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions as Mediators of News Framing Effects.Claes H. de Vreese, Andreas R. T. Schuck & Sophie Lecheler - 2013 - Communications 38 (2):189-209.
Environmental Concerns in the Marcellus Shale.William Beaver - 2014 - Business and Society Review 119 (1):125-146.
Framing, Truth Telling and the Problem with Non-Directive Counselling.D. Kirklin - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):58-62.
Are Intuitions About Moral Relevance Susceptible to Framing Effects?James Andow - 2017 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 9 (1):115-141.
H Ow Robust Are Framing Effects? Are Framing Effects More or Less Likely.A. Constructive - 2011 - In Gideon Keren (ed.), Perspectives on Framing. Psychology Press. pp. 219.
The Fracking Debate: The Risks, Benefits, and Uncertainties of the Shale Revolution.Janna Thompson - 2019 - The European Legacy 24 (7-8):882-884.
Karoo Fracking and the Christian Faith Community.Gerrit Van Tonder & Roger Tucker - 2014 - Hts Theological Studies 70 (2).
Fracking and Labquakes.Jordi Baró, Antoni Planes, Ekhard K. H. Salje & Eduard Vives - 2016 - Philosophical Magazine 96 (35):3686-3696.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2019-02-15
Total views
16 ( #623,445 of 2,420,816 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #249,143 of 2,420,816 )
2019-02-15
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?
Downloads