Elena A. Sidorova, Irina S. Kononenko

A.P. Ershov Institute of Informatics Systems SB RAS

The paper is devoted to the analysis of discursive argumentation techniques within the framework of modern trends in the field of reasoning modeling. Reasoning in scientific discourse is organized as a sequence of discursive techniques, i.e. steps of reasoning corresponding to certain mental operations on the object of the subject area. From a formal point of view, the elementary structure of reasoning corresponds to an argument that represents the transition from premises to the thesis being proved. The paper presents an ontological model describing typical arguments – argumentation schemes based on Douglas Walton's theory. The issues of classification of existing modes of reasoning are discussed and an approach to ontological analysis of discourse structures based on ontological-semantic relations is considered, which provide a conceptual basis for reasoning models and help to understand the nature of entities, relations and reasoning related to a particular context. An annotated corpus of texts that refer to the field of scientific communication was used as material for practical research, including analytical articles with users’ comments from the Habr forum (popular science discourse) and scientific articles with comments from reviewers (actually scientific discourse). Of particular interest in this study were the conflicting argumentative techniques used in the texts of the genres under study: Antithesis (`attack` + `on_thesis`) and Counterargument (`attack` + `on_argument`). A statistical analysis and further classification of these techniques depending on the genre were carried out. The obtained classification is based on 12 representative techniques of the first type and 30 techniques of the second type. The ontology, classification of techniques and the corpus are publicly available on the ArgNetBank Studio platform.

argumentation analysis, ontology of argumentation, argumentation scheme, polemical techniques