TAGGING THE ARGUMENTATIVE TEXT

Analyzing an argumentative text or an interaction means tagging it according to three main levels.

1. 1. To delineate the different sequences that make up the text or the interaction to be analyzed. To characterize the type and degree of argumentativeness of these sequences.
   2. For each argumentative sequence, identify the different lines of argument and their structures; the argument(s), the conclusion(s); the role of the counter-discourses, that is, the type of mutual criticism and evaluation implemented by each argumentative line.
   3. Specify the argumentative schemes.

The analysis of an argumentative passage must be based on relatively objective criteria, that is, on criteria that are as well defined as possible, stable and communicable, even if they are not always decisive. The analysis of an argumentative passage is an argumentative activity, whose claims can be criticized and must be justified.

In formal language, there would be markers, i.e., unambiguous and automatically identifiable material elements that would allow us to have discourses such as:

– Presence of marker(s) S: so, this section is an argumentative sequence.
– Presence of marker(s) A: so, this passage is an argument.
– Presence of marker(s) C: so, this passage is a conclusion.
– Presence of marker(s) T: the underlying argumentation scheme is of such and such a type.

Natural language arguments do not have such markers. Actual linguistic markers are systematically polysemic and polyfunctional. Their strictly argumentative function must be evaluated according to the context. It is as much the context that designates a marker as argumentative just as the marker designates the context as argumentative.

1. Defining an Argumentative Sequence

1.1 Sequencing the Flow of Speech

At the most general level, if we postulate that language or speech is inherently argumentative the problem of identifying specific argumentative sequences does not arise. If we postulate that, within the large linguistic data set (text, interaction) under consideration, only some sequences are more or less argumentative, the boundaries of these sequences must be clearly positioned in the flow of language.

A sequence is a relevant unit of analysis. The argumentative passages used in textbooks as well as in scientific presentations, are the product of this first sequencing operation. Sequencing and subsequencing the flow of speech seem to be routine operations. However, the selection of relevant argumentative passages is the first serious problem that the analyst has to face. His decision to impose such and such limits on the sequence to be analyzed should therefore be explicit and justified. The correct implementation of this operation requires a foray into the broader domains of case and corpus construction.

For example, in classroom interactions, the sequence, “problem solving” is different from the sequence, “homework and instructions”. In a meeting, the sequence, “setting the agenda” is different from the sequence “discussing and deciding on agenda item #19”. For a participant, identifying the sequence simply means “knowing what we are doing”.

Sequences and subsequences of any kind can be defined externally by their boundaries and internally by their own structure and foreground activity.

– Externally, the boundaries of the sequence are transition points characterized by topic changes, by specific closing and opening formulas, and by a redesign of the interaction format.

– Internally, the sequence is defined by a type of linguistic activity, by a specific interaction format, and by a semantic-thematic coherence, that globally obeys a completion principle. Exactly what a complete sequence consists of depends on the type of sequence considered; the internal principle of completion of a problem-solving sequence is not the same as that of an agenda-setting sequence.

1.2 Demarcation of Argumentative Sequences

Argumentative sequences are isolated according to the same internal and external criteria, argumentativeness being their specific difference.
Argumentation can be the defining activity of the sequence. It follows that the sequence, “discussion and decision on agenda item  #19” should normally be highly argumentative. The outer limits of such an institutionalized argumentative sequence depend on the rules of the institution.
Argumentation can be an emerging activity in any kind of sequence; for example, someone disagrees or makes other suggestions during the presentation of the agenda. The left boundary (opening) of an emerging argumentative sequence is characterized by the concretization of an opposition into an argumentative question. The right boundary (closing) can be of any kind, and is sometimes easier to grasp when it is considered in contrast to the following sequence; for example, the chair looks at the clock and says, “Well, I suggest that you discuss this very interesting point further during the coffee break. Thank you for your participation.

When dealing with a local issue, a contentious situation may develop and be resolved on the spot, possibly leaving no trace in the participant’s memory.
When dealing with a pre-existing question, such as a socio-scientific question, the current discussion is only one episode in the larger development of the question as discussed in various settings and crystallized in a specific script. In this case, the question has a history and the sequence is just one episode, that does not close the file.

2. Reconstruction of Argumentative Lines

The internal structure of an argumentative sequence is characterized by the type and the density of the argumentative operations it articulates. Classical points of analysis include coalitions; argument(s), conclusions; criticism and counter-discourse.

– If the text is a multi-speaker interaction or a polyphonic monologue, the analyst must attribute to each participant her own, i.e., the positions she holds and the roles she plays in the global dispute.
Positions are identified as segments that provide, or point to, an answer to the argumentative question. Experience shows that this seemingly elementary task can be quite challenging.

– Once oppositions and positions have been localized in this way, coalition systems can be observed, by looking at how the surrounding discourse relates to the coalition systems around the globally relevant positions, as well as their evolution in the dispute.

– Once the positions have been localized in this way, one looks at how the surrounding discourse relates to the proposed conclusion-answer, that is, one identifies the argument(s).
 Indicators of argumentative function, if available, help to identify the passage as an argument or a conclusion.

– The analysis of the critical strategies implemented by the participants refers to the different modalities of counter-discourse management: Direct repetition of other discourses, or evocation, reformulation, of these discourses; refutation of the opponents’ arguments: see destruction; refutation; objection.

— A very interesting point is to observe the interactions between the participants, not only the interactions between the opponents and the proponents, but also their interactions with the third parties, and the public at large.

— Observations about the relationship between the arguments developed on the spot by the participants and the general script attached to the question, if available, will be always be very instructive.

— Other questions concern the global characterization of the lines of argument developed by key participants, as the implementation of this or that strategy.

3. Argumentation Schemes

The argumentation scheme may be explicitly formulated in the passage as a general law. To identify it, one could look for general statements, that generally work as good support for the affirmation of values, principles or laws.

In order to decide on the correct argumentation scheme, one must investigate whether there is an acceptable paraphrase relationship between the generic discourse corresponding to the argumentation scheme, and the actual current argumentative discourse under investigation; in other words, between the topos and the enthymeme; for a detailed example of this mapping see argumentation scheme.

The operations required to determine whether such an argument scheme is reflected in the actual argumentation depend strongly on the scheme in question. The same concrete argumentative discourse may correspond to several, non-exclusive schemes.

---