| A general methodology, described as functional and psycholinguistic, is presented for theoretically formulating and empirically validating cognitive schemata for use in explaining the production and comprehension of argumentative discourse. The method is contrasted with previous methods for describing the structure of arguments in ordinary language. Two studies are reported in which the method is used in an attempt to empirically validate a proposed schema referred to as Argumentative Subsumption.;The second study repeated the conditions of the first but subjects were simply asked to recall the passages and conformity to the proposed schema was measured as proportion of schema-relevant vs schema-irrelevant information retained.;The pattern of results were the same for both studies: (1) conformity to the proposed schema was greatest for sign reasoning; (2) there was no difference in conformity to schema due to text cues; (3) there was greater conformity to schema for coordinate arguments than for subordinate arguments, but only in the case of sign reasoning.;In the first study, the conditions were created by crossing three types of argument conforming to the general schema (causal reasoning, sign reasoning and the fallacy of accident), two types of complex argument structure (coordination and subordination), and two levels of text cues indicating argument structure (high cues and low cues). Subjects listened to audio-taped passages of the stimulus arguments spoken in naturalistic language, and produced reconstructions of the arguments immediately after hearing them. Conformity to the proposed schema was measured as proportion of match between proposed schema and subject protocols. |
