Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument Diagramming: The Araucaria Project

  • Chapter
Knowledge Cartography

Part of the book series: Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing ((AI&KP))

Abstract

Formal arguments, such as those used in science, medicine and law to establish a conclusion by providing supporting evidence, are frequently represented by diagrams such as trees and graphs. We describe the software package Araucaria which allows textual arguments to be marked up and represented as standard, Toulmin or Wigmore diagrams. Since each of these diagramming techniques was devised for a particular domain or argumentation, we discuss some of the issues involved in translating between diagrams. The exercise of translating between different diagramming types illustrates that any one diagramming system often cannot capture all of the nuances inherent in an argument. Finally, we describe some areas, such as critical thinking courses in colleges and universities and the analysis of evidence in court cases, where Araucaria has been put to practical use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Freeman, J. (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Argument, NY: Foris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M.A. (1997) Coalescent Argumentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grennan, W. (1997) Informal Logic, Montreal: McGill Queens University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansard (2004) UK House of Commons Debates for 16 Sept 2004: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040916/debtext/40916-06.htm

  • Harrell, M. (2005) Using argument diagramming software in the classroom, Teaching Philosophy 28(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. (2003) Toulmin’s warrants, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Argumentation (ISSA 2002), SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, P. (2003) A Concise Introduction to Logic, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.H. (2000) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzav, J. and C. Reed (2004) On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of argument, Argumentation 18(4), 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzav, J., C.A. Reed and G.W.A. Rowe (2004) Argument Research Corpus, in: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed) Practical Applications in Language and Computers (Proceedings of the 2003 Conference), Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., S. Buckingham Shum and C. Carr (2003) Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, Berlin Heidelberg London New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, T.J., D.V. Carbogim, E.C.W. Krabbe and D.N. Walton (2003) Argument and multi-agent systems, in: C. Reed and T. Norman (eds) Argumentation Machines: New Frontiers in Argument and Computation, Kluwer, pp. 15–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1996) What is argument? Journal of Philosophy 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock (1995) Cognitive Carpentry, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahwan, I., P. Moraitis and C. Reed (2005) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (Proceedings of ArgMAS2004), no. 3366 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. and G. Rowe (2004) Araucaria: software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation, International Journal of AI Tools 13(4): 961–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. and G. Rowe (2006) Translating Toulmin diagrams: theory neutrality in argument representation, Argumentation 19(3): 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. and D. Walton (2005) Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2): 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. and C. Reed (2006) Translating Wigmore diagrams, in: P.E. Dunne and T.J.M. Bench-Capon (eds) Computational Models of Argument (Proceedings of COMMA 2006), Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., F. Macagno, C. Reed and D. Walton (2006) Araucaria as a tool for diagramming arguments in teaching and studying philosophy, Teaching Philosophy 29(2): 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolchinsky, P., S. Modgil, U. Cortes and M. Sanchez-Marre (2006) Cbr and argument schemes for collaborative decision making, in: P. Dunne and T. Bench-Capon (eds) Computational Models of Argument (Proceedings of COMMA 2006), Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twardy, C. (2004) Argument maps improve critical thinking, Teaching Philosophy 27, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Braak, S., H. van Oostendorp, H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk (2006) A critical review of argument visualization tools: do users become better reasoners? in: Working Notes of the 6th Workshop of Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. (ed) (2004) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Amsterdam: Vale Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2006) Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, S. and C. Reed (2005) A drosophila for computational dialectics, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. (1913) The Principles of Judicial Proof, Boston: Little Brown & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, S., G. Vreeswijk, M. South, C. Chesñevar, G. Simari, J. McGinnis, I. Rahwan and C. Reed (2006) Towards an argument interchange format for multiagent systems, in: N. Maudet, S. Parsons and I. Rahwan (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2006), Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wreen, M. (1998) A few remarks on the individuation of arguments, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Argumentation (ISSA 1998), SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Dundee, School of Computing, Dundee, UK

    Glenn Rowe & Chris Reed

Authors
  1. Glenn Rowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn Rowe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Alexandra Okada BSc, MA, PhD  & Simon Buckingham Shum BSc, MSc, PhD  & 

  2. The Centre for Science Education, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

    Tony Sherborne BSc, MA, PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rowe, G., Reed, C. (2008). Argument Diagramming: The Araucaria Project. In: Okada, A., Shum, S.B., Sherborne, T. (eds) Knowledge Cartography. Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-149-7_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-148-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-149-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation