Cover not available

Article published In: The Quality of Quantity, the Quantity of Quality
Edited by Steven Schoonjans
[Nota Bene 2:1] 2025
► pp. 106–130

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The analysis of argumentation topoi

A qualitative approach goes to large corpora

ORCiD logo with link | Technical University of Darmstadt
ORCiD logo with link | Technical University of Darmstadt
ORCiD logo with link | University of Trier
Published online: 26 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/nb.00025.kie
Abstract
This paper examines the role of argumentation topoi in discourse analysis, focusing on their identification, annotation, and automated classification. While topos analysis is a well-established method for uncovering collective patterns of reasoning in public discourse, its application in large-scale digital discourse analysis poses methodological challenges. This study investigates the so-called utility topos in bioethical debates, which encompasses both medical and economic arguments about benefit. We collaboratively developed annotation guidelines to ensure consistency and measured inter-annotator agreement. We then trained a BERT-based model on the gold-standard annotations and used it to classify utility topoi in German texts. The results indicate that while explicit argument structures are detectable, implicit and context-dependent reasoning remains difficult to capture. These findings highlight the need for refined annotation guidelines and contextual modelling in automated discourse analysis. The study contributes to the integration of qualitative and computational methods in argument analysis.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The method of the analysis of topoi
  • 3.Topos analysis empirically
  • 4.Annotating topoi in Controversial Discourses
    • 4.1Interpretative discourse research in a digital environment
    • 4.2Manual annotation
    • 4.3Corpus infrastructure
  • 5.Annotation of the utility topos in bioethical debates
    • 5.1Corpus description
    • 5.2Annotation scheme and techniques
    • 5.3Inter-annotator agreement
      • 1.Annotation of non-argumentative sentences
      • 2.Implicit or interpretative topoi
      • 3.Formal annotation inconsistencies
    • 5.4Data curation
  • 6.Automation and modelling
    • 6.1Experimental setup
    • 6.2Quantitative evaluation
    • 6.3Qualitative evaluation
      • 1.Evaluative language in financial discourse
      • 2.Utility in non-argumentative contexts
      • 3.Reported argumentation
      • 4.Syntactic complexity and embedded clauses
      • 5.Polarity and Negation
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Baker, Paul. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Corpus-assisted discourse analysis. In Christopher Hart (ed.), Researching Discourse: A student guide, 124–142. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid Khosravinik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery & Ruth Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19.31. 273–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartsch, Sabine, Evelyn Gius, Marcus Müller, Andrea Rapp & Thomas Weitin. 2023. Sinn und Segment. Wie die digitale Analysepraxis unsere Begriffe schärft. Zeitschrift für digitale Geisteswissenschaften 81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Maria, Michael Bender & Marcus Müller. 2020. Classifying Heuristic Textual Practices in Academic Discourse: A Deep Learning Approach to Pragmatics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 41. 426–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Maria, Michael Staniek, Vivi Nastase, Alexis Palmer & Annette Frank. 2019. Classifying semantic clause types with recurrent neural betworks: Analysis of attention, context and genre characteristics. TAL Journal (Traitement Automatique des Langues / Natural Language Processing) 59.21. 15–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, Michael. 2020. Annotation als Methode der digitalen Diskurslinguistik. Diskurse digital. Theorien — Methoden — Fallstudien 2.11. 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, Michael & Marcus Müller. 2020. Heuristische Textpraktiken. Eine kollaborative Annotationsstudie zum akademischen Diskurs. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 48.21. 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bender, Michael, Maria Becker, Carina Kiemes & Marcus Müller. 2023. Category Development at the Interface of Interpretive Pragmalinguistic Annotation and Machine Learning — Annotation, Detection and Classification of linguistic routines of discourse referencing in political debates. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 17.31. [URL]
Bubenhofer, Noah. 2009. Sprachgebrauchsmuster. Korpuslinguistik als Methode der Diskurs- und Kulturanalyse. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busse, Dietrich. 1987. Historische Semantik. Analyse eines Programms. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Branden, Stefan Schweter & Timo Möller. 2020. German’s Next Language Model. arXiv. Online: [URL].
Habernal, Ivan & Iryna Gurevych. 2016. Which argument is more convincing? Analyzing and predicting convincingness of Web arguments using bidirectional LSTM. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1589–1599. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, Gerlinde. 1995. ‘Only Connect.’ Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistis. UCREL Technical Papers 61. University of Lancaster. [URL]
Hughes, John. 2021. Krippendorffsalpha: An R Package for Measuring Agreement Using Krippendorff’s Alpha Coefficient. The R Journal 13.11. 413–425. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jung, Matthias. 1994. Zählen oder deuten? Das Methodenproblem der Diskursgeschichte am Beispiel der Atomenergiedebatte. In Dietrich Busse, Fritz Hermanns & Wolfgang Teubert (eds.), Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Methodenfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik, 60–81. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Diskurshistorische Analyse — eine linguistische Perspektive. In Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland, Werner Schneider & Willy Viehöver (eds.), Handbuch Sozial-wissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse. Vol. 1: Theorien und Methoden, 29–51. Opladen: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 1992. Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Vernünftig argumentieren. Regeln und Techniken der Diskussion. Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klie, Jan-Christoph, Michael Bugert, Beto Boullosa, Richard Eckart de Castilho & Iryna Gurevych. 2018. The INCEpTION Platform: Machine-Assisted and Knowledge-Oriented Interactive Annotation. Proceedings of System Demonstrations of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2018).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kopperschmidt, Josef. 1989. Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Formale Topik. Anmerkungen zu ihrer heuristischen Funktionalisierung innerhalb einer Argumentationsanalytik. In Gert Ueding (ed.), Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften. Geschichte, System, Praxis als Probleme des „Historischen Wörterbuchs der Rhetorik“, 53–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Qi, Matt J. Kusner & Phil Blunsom. 2020. A Survey on Contextual Embeddings. arXiv:2003.07278.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madabushi, Harish T., Mark Lee & John Barnden. 2018. Integrating question classification and deep learning for improved answer selection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 3283–3294. [URL]
Marchi, Anna & Charlotte Taylor. 2018. Introduction: Partiality and reflexivity. In Charlotte Taylor & Anna Marchi (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review, 1–15. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Costas Gabrielatos. 2006. English corpus linguistics. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics, 33–71. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Marcus. 2022. Die Plenarprotokolle des Deutschen Bundestags auf Discourse Lab. Korpora Deutsch als Fremdsprache 2.11. 123–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Marcus, Sabine Bartsch & Jens O. Zinn. 2021. Communicating the unknown. An interdisciplinary annotation study of uncertainty in the coronavirus pandemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26.41. 498–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Marcus & Jörn Stegmeier. 2019. Investigating risk, uncertainty and normativity within the framework of Digital Discourse Analysis. The example of future technologies in climate change discourse. In Anna Olofsson & Jens O. Zinn (eds.), Researching risk and uncertainty –methodologies, methods and research strategies, 309–335. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Zur Methodologie der kollaborativen Diskursgeschichte. Aptum. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 18.31. 280–296.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ottmers, Clemens. 1996. Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The Discourse Historical Approach (DHA). In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Rev. 2nd edition, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schröter, Juliane. 2021. Linguistische Argumentationsanalyse. Heidelberg: Winter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spieß, Constanze. 2011. Diskurshandlungen: Theorie und Methode linguistischer Diskursanalyse am Beispiel der Bioethikdebatte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte & Anna Marchi (eds.). 2018. Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1975. Der Gebrauch von Argumenten. Kronberg/Ts: Scriptor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wengeler, Martin. 2003. Topos und Diskurs. Begründung einer argumentationsanalytischen Methode und ihre Anwendung auf den Migrationsdiskurs (1960-1985). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Patterns of Argumentation and the Heterogeneity of Social Knowledge. Journal of Language and Politics 14.51. 689–711. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Kontroverse Diskurse. Sprachgeschichte als Zeitgeschichte seit 1990. Ein Forschungsprojekt. Aptum, Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 18.31. 201–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2001. The Discourse Historical Approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 63–95. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue