An instrument for analysing students’ argumentative reasoning when participating in debates

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 713-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Martins ◽  
Rosária Justi
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-438
Author(s):  
Ting Wu

AbstractThe development of new media enlarges the repertoire of semantic resources in creating a discourse. Apart from language, visual and sound symbols can all become semantic sources, and a synergy of different modality and symbols can be used to complete argumentative reasoning and evaluation. In the framework of multimodal argumentation and appraisal theory, this study conducted quantitative and multimodal discourse analysis on a new media discourse Building a community of shared future for humankind and found that visual symbols can independently fulfill both reasoning and evaluation in the argumentative discourse. An interplay of multiple modalities constructs a multi-layered semantic source, with verbal subtitles as a frame and a sound system designed to reinforce the theme and mood. In addition, visual modality is implicit in constructing the stance and evaluation of the discourse, with the verbal mode playing the role of “anchoring,” i.e. providing explicit explanation. A synergy of visual, acoustic, and verbal modalities could effectively transmit conceptual, interpersonal, and discursive meanings, but the persuasive result with the audience from different cultural backgrounds might be mixed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudi Palmieri ◽  
Johanna Miecznikowski

Compared to other domains of media discourse, economic-financial news contain a considerable amount of speech acts regarding future events, in particular predictions. This can be explained by their specific institutional context, financial markets, where investors constantly seek to single out gain opportunities and to correctly assess their risk. One of the crucial factors making economic-financial predictions worthy of being considered in investment decisions is argumentation, in particular the extent to which the predicted proposition follows from a plausible and acceptable reasoning. Starting from a corpus of 50 articles of the Italian economic-financial press, we consider the inferential dimension of prediction-oriented arguments, focusing on the locus, i.e. the ontological relation on which the connection between the argument(s) and the predictive conclusion rests. All predictions found in the corpus were manually annotated with the software UAM Corpus Tool. For each of them we identified the source, which could be either the journalist him/herself or a third party, typically financial analysts or corporate actors. We distinguished mere predictive opinions from predictive standpoints, i.e. predictions for which the journalist advances one or more supportive arguments (either confirmatory of refutatory). For the latter category, we identified the locus referring to an adaptation of the taxonomy outlined by Rigotti (2009). The findings highlight in particular the following three interesting aspects: (1) in predictions, journalists reinforce their stance by plausible justifications, but weaken it at the same time by marking it as uncertain and/or by using reported speech or evidential means to reduce their responsibility for the predictive speech act; (2) the justification of a predictive standpoint, by the journalist or by third parties, is mostly based on loci of causality, in particular on the locus from efficient cause, the locus from final cause and complex forms of causality where the involvement of rational agents is implied but defocused; (3) moreover, journalists refer to the predictive opinions of experts or corporate insiders to activate the locus from authority, either by explicit argumentation or implicitly, by reporting speech from reliable sources. Our study suggests that the role of predictions in financial news is not so much that of giving any straightforward advice to investors, but rather that of providing chunks of sound argumentative reasoning, including both supportive evidence and rebuttals or refutatory moves, that the investor-reader might apply and combine in the highly uncertain context of financial markets. Overall, our findings shed light on how financial journalists fulfil the function of information intermediaries in finance.


Author(s):  
Alejandro J. García ◽  
Nicolás D. Rotstein ◽  
Mariano Tucat ◽  
Guillermo R. Simari

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Mercier

AbstractAccording to the argumentative theory of reasoning, humans have evolved reasoning abilities (usually known as ‘system 2’ or ‘analytic’ reasoning) for argumentative purposes. This implies that some reasoning skills should be universals. Such a claim seems to be at odd with findings from cross-cultural research. First, a wealth of research, following the work of Luria, has shown apparent difficulties for illiterate populations to solve simple but abstract syllogisms. It can be shown, however, that once they are willing to accept the pragmatics of the task, these participants can perform at or near ceiling. Second, historical, sociological and anthropological research has been used to claim that some Eastern cultures have not developed argumentation. These claims are the result of oversimplifications and of a selective view of the data. A closer looks reveals instead very elaborate forms of argumentation, in Chinese culture particularly. Third, cross-cultural psychologists have carried out an extensive research program aimed at showing that Easterners do not rely on the principle of non-contradiction and that they use holistic rather than analytic thinking. A review of these experiments shows that no qualitative difference emerges in the way Easterners and Westerners deal with argumentation and that in the proper context both populations can easily have recourse to holistic or analytic thinking. It is possible to conclude from this critical review that the reasoning skills involved in argumentation seem to be universal even though they can be used in different ways in various cultural contexts.


Topoi ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 513-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Mercier ◽  
Christophe Heintz

2017 ◽  
Vol 56 (8) ◽  
pp. 1324-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Song ◽  
Jesse R. Sparks

This project aimed to develop an engaging formative assessment that simulates the social and dialogic processes that are often missing in traditional instruction and assessment of argumentation. In this article, we describe the design of an argumentative reasoning task within a scenario-based assessment enhanced with game elements ( Seaball—Semester at Sea). This Seaball task requires students to classify foods as “junk food” or not, by identifying relevant evidence to support their decisions and evaluating reasoning errors in others’ arguments. Data from a small-scale study of 42 middle school students revealed that students performed significantly better on questions requiring selection of appropriate evidence than questions requiring identification of logical fallacies. Additionally, students’ total scores were significantly correlated with external measures of argumentation skills, and with teacher’s ratings of their argumentative writing skills. Survey indicated that students perceived the game-enhanced scenario-based assessment as engaging. Implications for formative assessment are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document