Search results

Institutions are built upon language. Although we have a number of linguistic perspectives already in our arsenal, this chapter seeks to convince you of our need for just one more. The primary claim is that because the structure of arguments uniquely maps onto the latent structure of institutions, the use of arguments in institutional analysis may help us gain more traction on three important topics – the nature taken-for-grantedness, the macro-micro divide, and the political dynamics of institutions. This chapter thus offers a starting point for how to use an argumentation perspective when studying institutions.

This study developed two presentation modes of scientific articles and evaluated their usability with user experiments.

Two presentation modes of scientific articles, simply referred to as “genre presentation mode” and “argument presentation mode”, were constructed based on their genre structure and argument structure respectively. Their usability was evaluated by being compared against the existing RichHTML presentation mode in the experiments using eye-tracking and questionnaire methods.

The participants who were going to find the specific information of scientific articles rated the genre presentation mode higher than they did with either the argument or the RichHTML presentation mode for effectiveness. In contrast, those who were going to understand the general idea of scientific articles rated both the genre and argument presentation mode higher than they did with the RichHTML mode. In terms of efficiency, the participants took less reading time when the articles of non-native language were presented with the genre mode than they did when the articles were presented with the argument mode. When reading the articles in native language to understand the general idea, the participants took less reading time for the articles presented with the argument mode than they did for the articles presented with the genre mode. In comparison, they took less reading time when the articles were presented with the argument mode if they were going to find specific information. For satisfaction, the genre presentation mode was more popular than the argument mode and the RichHTML mode. However, the participants were less satisfied with the argument presentation mode than the other two when reading in native language and intending to find specific information.

The two presentation modes of scientific articles are found to improve the accuracy of information acquisition, shorten the total reading time and be more acceptable by readers.

The dramatic increase in the fraction of all Afro‐American families headed by single women accounts for approximately two‐fifths of the Afro‐Euro family income gap. Examines the empirical objections to the conclusion that family structure is a major factor behind ethnic inequality and found to be largely without merit. Also critically examines the more normative and more important objection that the family structure argument undercuts the struggle to achieve economic justice for Afro‐Americans. Argues that an emphasis on family structure does not absolve society of responsibility for inequality, nor does it imply that government activism is futile. The family structure argument recasts but does not negate the struggle for economic justice for Afro‐Americans.

This paper aims to examine how systems for organizing information construct rhetorical arguments for a particular interpretation of their subject matter.

The paper synthesizes a conceptual framework from the field of rhetoric and uses that framework to analyze how existing organizational schemes present evidence in support of arguments regarding the material being organized.

Organizational schemes can present logical arguments as posed in rhetoric, using two forms of evidence for their claims: relationship evidence from the category structure and resource evidence from the ways that items are assigned to categories.

This study does not attempt to identify all types of evidence that organizational schemes might use in argumentation. Further research may describe additional forms of evidence and argumentative structures.

When creating organizational schemes, designers might develop a strategy to facilitate persuasive argumentation. Moreover, because arguments may be either strengthened or undermined through the assignment of resources to categories, both indexing and collection development may be seen as contributing to the overall design of an organizational scheme.

While many researchers have asserted that organizational schemes form arguments, and while various studies have described what information systems might be said to communicate, this study focuses on how such communication may take place more or less effectively. This analysis foregrounds the potential for organizational schemes to be systematically and purposefully designed as rhetorical communication, to express particular ideas.

The present study develops a conceptual model that shows how the manipulation attributes of word choice, sentence fluency, convention of meaning, and organization of sentence structure in online hotel reviews are connected to linguistic errors, such as spelling and grammar and argument errors, how such errors intensify the likelihood that messages will be misunderstood, and how these misunderstandings affect customers' responses.

A structured questionnaire was employed to collect data from 591 inbound tourists in Beijing, China. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 and Amos Graphics 23.0. Descriptive analysis was performed to explain the sociodemographic characteristic of respondents. Structural equation modeling was performed to examine hypothesized relationships.

Results demonstrate that manipulation attributes increase linguistic errors, and two linguistic errors have profound positive effects on customers' understanding of meaning, which influence their responses in the form of negative online ratings and low purchase intentions.

The study's findings contribute to the literature on hospitality, linguistics, and consumer behavior, and have managerial implications for online review websites, online travel agents, and hotel management. Research limitations lead to suggestions for future research for hospitality scholars.

In his discussion of early lexical development in children Barrett (1995) notes that utterances can be of the following types: an expression of an internal state, a response to a specific context, a social-pragmatic utterance and a referential utterance. A referential utterance can be thought of in the following way: the thing referred to, a mental representation, a word representation and a word sound. An utterance may refer to an object, an action, an attribute or an event. Some utterances are used as the names of classes of objects while other utterances are used as the proper names of individual objects. Looking at this in abstract we might say that, in the early years of childhood, language is used to refer to elements, sets, functions and relations – in other words to the mathematical structures which were discussed in Chapter 2. Of course although early language is used to refer to mathematical objects, the character of the language itself takes the form of ordinary language.

Many public issues, such as environmental actions, involve a large number of diverse stakeholders such as governments, corporations, organizations (e.g. NGOs), and concerned citizens. Discussions frequently become contentious as the stakeholders defend their potentially conflicting goals with various assumptions, views, and expert testimony. These issues also tend to involve a range of fields. For example, the disposition of nuclear waste includes issues of economics, science, engineering, politics, and intergenerational justice, each with large uncertainties due to dependences on indirect estimations and the long time periods involved. At the same time that these complex issues might increase in number, due to applications of new technologies, tools are being developed on the Internet to enable flexible learning, visualization, collaborative conferencing, distributed computing, and meaning‐based (semantic) context. These tools might enable improved techniques for debating and discussing these complex issues. A technique that might facilitate orderly discussion of various arguments would include explicit recording and visualization of the evidence, its assumptions and uncertainties, their relationships in constructing the overall argument, and the ways the evidence needs to be generalized to support the argument. A simple argument visualization approach is explored based on a combination of an argument logic framework and techniques for fusing generalized data that are similar to kriging in spatial analysis. This approach is then applied to a recently contested risk analysis of nuclear waste disposition that was debated in a peer‐reviewed journal, involving concerns about uses of data, complex computational models, uncertainty analysis, and expert judgment. The need for wider understanding of such complex issues might be addressed by a convergence of techniques to facilitate greater understanding and the advanced Internet technologies to lower barriers to their adoption.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a risk assessment model to assess the occupational safety and health (OSH) risks presented by different construction approaches, namely traditional and industrialised building system (IBS). The development process applies the concept of argumentation theory, which helps construction designers integrate the management of OSH risk into the design process. In addition, an energy damage model is used as an underpinning framework for developing the model.

Development of the model was achieved through two phases. Phase I involved collection of data on the activities involved in the construction process and their associated OSH risks, derived from five different case studies, field observation and interviews. Knowledge of design aspects that have the potential to impact on OSH was obtained from document analysis. Using the knowledge obtained in phase I, a model was developed in the form of argument trees (Phase II), which represent a reasoning template with regard to options available to designers when they make judgements about aspects of their designs. Inferences from these aspects eventually determined the magnitude of the damaging energies for every activity involved. Finally, the model was validated by panels of experts, and revisions and amendments were made to the model accordingly.

The risk assessment model development revealed that the concept of argumentation theory and energy damage model is suitable to represent design safety risk knowledge and effectively address the designer's role in making decisions in their designs and further illuminate the level of OSH risk their designs pose.

The developed model provides best-practice reasoning support for construction designers, which help them to understand the impact of their designs decisions on worker's safety and health, and thereby assist them to further mitigate the risk to an acceptable level.

This study departs from the existing tool in that the model was developed based upon the combination of argumentation theory and energy damage model. The significance of the model is discussed.

Complex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their impacts on people and on the society, it is important for the authors to understand how people reason online such as when they need to justify themselves or convince others with their perspectives. Reasoning in online discussions is expectedly to be different from doing so offline, as one often communicates with others anonymously and asynchronously in such contexts (e.g. Reddit discussions). The purpose of this paper is to investigate people's reasoning behavior in online environments focusing on how they justify their perspectives.

In this study, the authors examined how a subreddit Change My View (CMV) users offer their opinions and justify them through the lens of argumentation and reasoning. The authors annotated, 330 Reddit discussion original posts (OPs) to identify claims, rationales and supports for reasoning, i.e. personal experiences, definitions, domain expertise and external sources. The authors investigated the correlations among the occurrences of these supporting statements and whether they are related to the topics of the posts.

The findings suggest that if people mention their domain expertise, they tend to provide related personal experiences as well. Additionally, if the participants talk about the topic of domestic politics, they tend to utilize their personal experiences.

Further research may be conducted to help system designers. System designers (e.g. online debate systems, collective decision-making systems, etc.) may benefit from the findings to design systems by considering commonly used supporting statements, which may enhance people's reasoning and argumentation processes. The sample size is a small sample. The authors acknowledge that the small sample size of the study may limit the generalizability of the findings; however, it is still acceptable compared to the existing literature. One future study could be annotating a larger dataset to further probe the use of supporting statements in online reasoning.

The authors' findings might be useful to understand how Reddit users are justifying their opinions as the reflection of their reasoning processes. In order to contribute further research in argumentation and reasoning in online platforms, the authors make the annotated dataset publicly available.

To best of the authors' knowledge, this study was one of a few studies whose purpose is to understand Reddit CMV users' reasoning processes. To understand how online users offer their reasons while providing their ideas is important to have effective communication processes and to improve online discussion experiences which are very common in today's digital era.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0330