argument structure

合集下载

StructureOfArgument论点的结构教学PPT

逻辑链
断言
证据（某些情况下可以包含前期得证的断言）
保留
Structure of a Simple Argument
法律的强制性有助于保证人们不会在公共
场所吸烟
中国应不允公共场所吸烟
公共场所吸烟危害不吸烟者
除非是在有隔离措施的情况下
（译者注：例如专设吸烟区）
Argument with Combined Structure
多独立论据型论点
• Several pieces of evidence independently support a claim多个独立论据支撑一个论断
逻辑链
论据
论断
保留
Argument with Independent Structure
核电站有发生事故的风险
核电站产生核废料
核电站释放出低强度辐射
事故风险，核废料和低强度辐射是危险的
核电站是危险的
谢谢
Structure of a Simple Argument
• In this example, the evidence is actually a previous claim that the audience has been convinced to accept.
简单论点的结构
• 在本例中, 充当证据的内容实际上是一个已经经过推导被观众接受了的断言。
• Reservation: not present in all arguments, a reservation explains special circumstances when the claim should be set aside.

coordinate structure语言学 -回复

coordinate structure语言学-回复什么是coordinate structure语言学以及其重要性。

Coordinate structure语言学是一种语言学理论，主要关注研究句子和短语结构中的并列成分之间的关系。

并列结构是当两个或多个成分具有相同的结构和功能时，出现在句子或短语中的一种语言现象。

Coordinate structure的研究帮助我们理解句子和短语的组织方式，揭示语法规则以及语言习得过程中的模式。

Coordinate structure语言学的重要性在于它能够揭示语言结构的一致性和规范性。

通过对并列结构的分析，我们可以发现语言中的一些规律和模式，进而推测语言习得和语法规则的机制。

此外，coordinate structure 的研究还对翻译、教育、计算语言学等领域有着一定的应用价值。

那么，如何进行coordinate structure的分析呢？我们可以使用一些基本原则和方法来研究并列结构。

首先，我们需要观察并列结构中的成分。

并列结构的成分通常具有相同的词类和功能。

例如，在英语中，“I like reading books and watching movies.”中的“reading books”和“watching movies”都是动词-ing形式的短语，具有相同的功能，即作为谓语动词的宾语。

其次，我们需要确定并列结构中成分的结构和功能。

为了找到并列结构的成分，我们可以使用分裂策略。

这意味着将句子分为两部分，然后找到并列部分的成分。

例如，在句子“I like reading books and watching movies.”中，我们可以使用分裂策略将句子分为“I like reading books”和“watching movies”两个部分来查找并列成分。

此外，我们还可以使用树形结构表示并列结构。

树形结构是一种图形化的表示方法，用于显示语言结构中各个成分之间的关系。

Generating the structure of argument

Generating the Structure of ArgumentChris ReedDepartment of IS and ComputingBrunel University Middlesex, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, England Chris.Reed@Derek LongDepartment of Computer ScienceUniversity of DurhamSouth Road, Durham DH1 3LE, EnglandD.P.Long@AbstractThis paper demonstrates that generating arguments in natural language requires planning at an abstract level, and that the appropriate abstraction cannot be captured by approaches based solely upon coherence relations. An abstraction based planning system is presented which employs operators motivated by empirical study and rhetorical maxims. These operators include a subset of traditional deductive rules of inference, argumentation theoretic rules of refutation, and inductive reasoning patterns. The paper presents a unified system in which the various argument forms are employed in generating rich, complex structures for persuasive text.IntroductionThe ability to generate arguments in natural language is attracting wide-ranging research interest, and it is becoming clear that the problem is also stimulating investigation of a number of problems of importance to natural language generation (NLG) as a whole (Reed and Long, 1997a). Argumentation is particularly appropriate as an NLG problem both because it is more highly structured than other forms of natural language, and because there are a variety of established metrics developed in rhetoric and social psychology for judging the resultant quality of a text. These advantages are being exploited in the design and implementation of the Rhetorica system, of which the current work forms a part.1Problems with RSTA number of limitations of the generative capacity of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) (Mann and Thompson, 1988) have recently been identified – most notably, its inability to adequately handle intention (Moore and Paris, 1994). Through investigation of a particular genre – persuasive text – it has become clear that RST suffers from a much wider catalogue of crippling restrictions, severely limiting its applicability to generation in this genre and questioning its suitability elsewhere.Mann and Thompson discuss the key role played by the notion of nuclearity– that relations hold between one nucleus and one satellite. They do, however, concede (p269) that there are a few cases in which nuclearity breaks down – and these they regard as rather unusual. The two types of multi-nuclear constructs they identify are enveloping structures– “texts with conventional openings and closings” and parallel structures – “texts in which parallelism is the dominant organising pattern”. Both of these are not just common in argument, but form key components. Enveloping structures are precisely what are described by, for example, Blair (1838) (citing Cicero), when presenting the dissection of argument into introduction, proposition, division, narration, argumentative, pathetic and conclusion (these are by no means obligatory in every argument, nor is there any great consensus over this particular characterisation; most authors, however, would agree that some such gross structure, usually involving introduction and conclusion, is appropriate). These structures are found with great frequency in natural argument, and cannot, therefore, be ignored. Parallel structures form the very basis of argument, since only the most trivial will involve lines of reasoning in which a single premise supports a single conclusion. Multiple subarguments conjoined to support a conclusion are the norm (see for example,Cohen (1987), Reed and Long, 1997b), and these necessarily form parallel structures.Another shortcoming is highlighted by a dissonance between RST and argument analysis (see Eemeren et al. (1996) for a review). A given text may be amenable to multiple RST analyses – not just as a result of ambiguity, but because there are, at a fundamental level,“multiple compatible analyses”. This contrasts with the view in argumentation theory, where one argument has a single, unequivocal structure. There may, of course, be practical problems in identifying this structure, and two analysts may disagree on the most appropriate analysis (and indeed this latter has a close parallel in RST, since different analysts are at liberty to make different ‘plausibility judgements’ as to the aims of the speaker). The presence of these problems, however, is not equivalent to claiming that arguments may simply have more than one structure, a claim which would pose insurmountable problems to the evaluation process (- argumentation theory aims to determine a means of classifying an argument as either good or bad, and the presence of inherent structural multiplicity would present the possibility of an argument being simultaneously good and bad).Finally, there is a more intuitive problem with RST, highlighted by analysing argument structure. Although there is much debate over the number and range of rhetorical relations (e.g. Hovy, 1993) there seems to be no way of dealing with the idea of argumentative support. In the first place, as Snoeck-Henkemans (1997) points out, Motivation, Evidence, Justification, Cause, Solutionhood and other relations could all be used argumentatively (as well, of course, as being applicable in non-argumentative situations). Elhadad (1992) draws a similar conclusion (though his list of potentially argumentative relations is somewhat shorter). Thus it is impossible to identify an argumentative relation on the basis of RST alone. Secondly, RST offers no way of capturing higher level organisational units, such as Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and so on. For although their structure (or at least the structure of any one instance) can be represented in RST – and, given Marcu’s (1996) elegant extensions, even their hierarchical use in larger units – adopting this approach necessitates a lower level view. It becomes impossible to represent and employ a Modus Tollens subargument supporting the antecedent of a Modus Ponens – rather, the situation can only be characterised as P supporting through one of the potentially argumentative RST relations Q, and showing that ~Q, so ~P, and ~P then supporting through one of the potentially argumentative RST relations R, therefore R. Apart from being obviously cumbersome, the representation has lost the abstract structure of the argument altogether, and is not generalisable and comparable to other similar argument structures. (It could perhaps be maintained that such structures could be represented as RST schemas, but there are several problems with such an approach: in the first place, schemas cannot abstract from individual relations, so there would need to be a separate ‘Modus Ponens’schema for each possible argumentative support relation; furthermore, the optionality and repetition rules of schema application (Mann and Thomson, 1988, p248) are not suited to argument, as they license the creation of incoherent argument structure).It is for these reasons, and particularly, the last, that although RST plays an important role in the current work, it is subsumed by a layer which explicitly represents argumentative constructs. These constructs can be mapped on to the most appropriate set of RST relations (thus, for example, the implicature in an MP may be realised into any one of the potentially argumentative relations mentioned above). The approach thus maintains the generative capabilities of RST (particularly when extended along the lines of Marcu (1996) to ensure coherency through adducement of canonical ordering constraints), whilst embracing the intuitive argumentative relationships at a more abstract level. It is these latter relationships which characterise the structure of the argument (i.e. the structure which argumentation theory strives to determine). The relationships are also unambiguous: a single argument has exactly one structure at this level abstraction (though multiplicity is not thereby prevented at the RST level). Further, parallelism occurs only at the higher level of abstraction (multiple subarguments contribute to a conclusion, buteach subargument is mononucleaic), and similarly, enveloping structures are also characterised only at the higher level (thus the RST is restricted to a predominantly mononucleaic structure). Finally, complete argument texts are not obliged to have complete RST trees. For although most parts of a text are likely to have unifying RST analyses, and although there must be a single overarching structure at the highest level of abstraction, the refinement to RST need not enforce the introduction of rhetorical relations between parts. This expands the flexibility and generative capacity of the system encompassing a greater proportion of coherent arguments (including, for example, those found in laws and contracts).2Abstraction-Based PlanningThe structure of argument is thus planned at a level more abstract than RST. To exploit the intrinsic hierarchical structuring of argument, the current work makes use of AbNLP (Fox and Long, 1995), a hierarchical planner based upon the concept of encapsulation, whereby the body of an abstract operator contains goals rather than operators, and further, that the body of an operator is not opened up until an entire abstract plan has been completed (i.e. there are no goals left unfulfilled at that level of abstraction). On completion of an abstract plan (which can be seen, in discourse planning, as a skeletal outline of what is to be communicated), the refinement operation opens up all the abstract operator bodies, such that the structure and constraints determined at one level of abstraction are propagated to the next level down. As a consequence, many choices which might have been considered during planning of an argument at the detailed level can be pruned as they become inconsistent with the abstract plan. Such an approach has the potential to considerably improve upon the performance of a classical planner, (Bacchus and Yang, 1992). The use of AbNLP in a framework for argumentative discourse planning is discussed in more detail in Reed et al. (1996).The operators employed by AbNLP utilise a highly parsimonious set of intentional goals. Belief goals are used to build the content of an argument (as in much other NLG work);saliency goals to express the intention to convey information to the hearer (following a notion of saliency similar to that proposed in Walker, 1996); and topic manipulation goals to control the focus of attention through the discourse. The roles of these goals and their interrelationships are explored in relation to the information-intention-attention model of Grosz and Sidner (1986) in more detail in Reed and Long (1997a). 3Deductive OperatorsThe choice of operators implemented in the Rhetorica system has been influenced by a number of factors. The rules of inference are clear candidates for operationalisation: moves such as Modus Ponens are clearly vital components of any argument - though, as noted in Grosz and Sidner (1986), p201, it is inappropriate to view the implication step as one of conventional material implication. The relationship is rather one of support – the hearer must be brought to believe that (given the current context and domain of discourse) the first proposition warrants, in part, concluding the second. Even given this weaker, predicate-based reading of a Modus Ponens argument, it is still unclear that any of the other rules of inference (which are, after all, formally redundant) should be necessary. The answer lies in the second consideration, which is entirely empirical – the reason that the argument planning needs to be able to employ other rules of inference is that such argument forms occur naturally. Modus Tollens, for example, is perfectly common, with numerous (real world) examples in argumentation texts such as Fisher (1988). Further, there is a variety of evidence which suggests that Modus Tollens in fact occupies a crucial position in human reasoning (Ohlsson and Robin (1994) cite examples not only from psychology, artificial intelligence and empirical observation, but also by reference to classic examples of Euclid, Galileo, etc.)Disjunctive Syllogisms are also found reasonably often, but the remaining rules of inference are found very rarely. For this reason, only the three logical argument forms, MP, MT and DS, are currently implemented.The three deductive operators are shown in Figure 1 (the orderings constraining the bodygoals – enforcing initial and terminal positions for PUSH_TOPIC and POP_TOPIC respectively –are omitted for clarity). The preconditions on each operator act as filters on their applicability (so that, for example, the version of MP shown is only applicable for the situation in which the hearer believes the negation of the conclusion). The body is bounded by the topic manipulators which take as a parameter the topic for the current argument, of the form arg(X,P), a generic expression representing an argument concluding P using a premise X (used to abstract from Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, etc.). The saliency goals also employ the same context parameter: this is used at a later stage to ensure a basic level of coherency (by placing utterances within the appropriate focus space) – discussion of this mechanism is beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, the operator bodies also include goals of belief which are satisfied (after refinement) by further applications of the operators (e.g. the goal t1 in a given MP could be fulfilled by an MT)4Refutation operatorsIn addition to these deductive operators, Rhetorica also employs pseudo-deductive operators, by means of which counter-counterargumentation structures can be developed. The importance of including such refutation in an argument has been conclusively demonstrated in social psychology (Hovland, 1957). The operators required to effect the generation of such structure are closely related to the notions of conflict explored by Haggith (1996), and draw upon the distinction between rebutting and undercutting counterarguments, identified in (Toulmin, 1958). Given the situation portrayed in Figure 2, in which the speaker believes p because of a, and also disbelieves b because of d and e, and the hearer believes ~p supported by b and c, a number of options are available to the speaker. The conventional MP operator discussed above can be employed to support p by a – this is rebuttal. In addition, the hearer’s belief in ~p can be undercut by arguing against one of its supports, namely, b.~b p~pd e a b cS HFigure 2. Sample scenarioThere are thus no new operators for rebutting, since those in Figure 1 already fulfil that role. Undercutting, however, requires two new operators, one which characterises a refutation of a premise (UCP), and one which characterises a refutation of the validity of an inference (UCI). The operator definitions are shown below in Figure 3.There are several points to note about these definitions. First, that they are fairly loose, since the speaker is not obliged to believe the falsity of the hearer’s premise, merely be able to persuade the hearer of that falsity (though the speaker is somewhat constrained by rules of terminal goal fulfilment – in particular, the BEL(H, P) goal is prohibited from fulfilment byMP (Ag, X, P)Shell:Precond:X, (X → P)BEL (Ag, ~P)Add:BEL (Ag, P)Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(X,P))t1:BEL(Ag, X)t2:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X,arg(X,P))t3:BEL(Ag, X→P)t4:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X→P,arg(X,P))t5:POP_TOPIC(arg(X,P))MT (Ag, X, P)Shell:Precond:X, (~P → X)BEL (Ag, ~P)Add:BEL (Ag, P)Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(~X,P))t1:BEL(Ag,~X)t2:IS_SALIENT(Ag,~X,arg(~X,P))t3:BEL(Ag,~P→X)t4:IS_SALIENT(Ag,~P→X,arg(~X,P))t5:POP_TOPIC(arg(~X,P))DS (Ag, X, P)Shell:Precond:X, (X ∨ P)BEL (Ag, ~P)Add:BEL (Ag, P)Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(X,P))t1:BEL(Ag, ~X)t2:IS_SALIENT(Ag,~X,arg(X,P))t3:BEL(Ag, X ∨ P)t4:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X ∨ P,arg(X,P))t5:POP_TOPIC(arg(X,P))Figure 1. The deductive operatorsany means other than substantial support).Secondly, in the UCP operator, it is necessary to make sure that the hearer is aware that the premise supports his conclusion – but clearly,the speaker doesn’t want to offer any further support for the inference, hence the absence of a belief goal corresponding to IS_SALIENT(Ag, X → P, arg(~X,P)). Lastly, a similar issue faces the UCI operator – the t1goal expresses theneed to make the premise salient beforeattacking it. Indeed, stating counterarguments is the key to counter-counterargumentation: just mentioning a counterargument can bolster a claim. The goal is particularly interesting both from a realisation point of view (where information can be exploited that x is being made salient in the context of an argument from ~x), and an ordering point of view (whether or not statement should precede refutation, and then whether or not UCP/I argumentation should precede pro support is a major issue of debate in psychology, Hass and Linder, 1972).The deductive operators, however, do not offer the full range of argument forms found in natural text. One major omission is the class of inductive operators, including analogy, inductive generalisation, and causal relation. The framework is designed to admit all these operators, but the current work concentrates upon inductive generalisation.Inductive generalisation (IG) is of particular interest for a number of reasons. The first is the frequency with which various naively statistical and probabilistic arguments are employed in natural language. More importantly, though, are the problems faced in argumentation theoretic analyses of inductive generalisation. Freeman (1991) examines the problems in depth, and, building on Toulmin’s work (1958), and its criticisms, comes to a well justified conclusion that IG should be treated as a convergent arrangement. His argument rests largely on the distinction between the ‘ground adequacy’ and ‘relevance’ questions: in analysing any argument as dialogical, the analyst can look at any two premises and infer that some imaginary opponent had asked a question after the first premise to elicit the second. If that question was ‘Can you give me another reason?’(ground adequacy), the resulting structure is convergent, whereas if that question was ‘Why does the premise support the conclusion?’(relevance), the resulting structure is linked. An inductive generalisation is thus based on a number of premises between which an imaginary opponent continually asks the ground adequacy question. The reason, Freeman claims, that inductive generalisation may be intuitively mistaken for a linked structure is that each premise in itself lends only very weak support to the conclusion, and that this generally results in assumption of linkage. Freeman’s work and its relation to other accounts of linked and convergent argumentation is explored more fully in (Reed and Long, 1997b).In following Freeman’s attractive account of IG, it may appear that the required convergent structure can be fully accounted for in the existing framework, by allowing the standard iterative fulfilment of goals of belief discussed (Reed and Long, 1997a). However, Freeman’s account, because it is analytic, omits the rather obvious fact that premises in an IG have something in common with each other and with the conclusion. That a premise in an IG is related to the conclusion in some respect cannot be handled simply by iterating through all available supports for an argument, since there is no way to select all and only those premises which support the conclusion in the given respect. Furthermore, it is important that the IG itself is seen as a unit, since it is quiteUCP (Ag, X, P)Shell:Precond:P, BEL(Ag, ~P)BEL(Ag, X), BEL(Ag, X→P) Add:BEL(Ag, P)BEL(Ag, ~X)Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(~X,P))t1:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X,arg(~X,P))t2:BEL(Ag,~X)t3:IS_SALIENT(Ag,~X,arg(~X,P))t4:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X→P,arg(~X,P))t5:POP_TOPIC(arg(~X,P))UCI (Ag, X, P)Shell:Precond:~(X→P), BEL(Ag, ~P)BEL(Ag, X), BEL(Ag, X→P) Add:BEL(Ag, P)BEL(Ag, ~(X→P))Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(~(X→P),P))t1:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X,arg(~(X→P),P))t1:BEL(Ag,~(X→P))t2:IS_SALIENT(Ag,~(X→P),arg(~(X→P),P))t5:POP_TOPIC(arg(~(X→P),P))Figure 3. Refutation operatorsinappropriate for subsequent ordering heuristics to be at liberty to intersperse various deductive premises for a conclusion in the midst of the inductive premises (or further, that if there exist two or more IGs supporting the same conclusion – each employing a different common attribute –it is inappropriate to mix premises from the various arguments). Seeing the whole IG as a unit enables appropriate scoping for reordering:the premises within the unit can be reordered wholly within the unit, and the unit itself can be moved around wholesale with respect to the other premises. An IG is thus viewed in the current work as a premise. This is illustrated in the diagrammatic argument notation as a phantom node , as shown in Figure 4.pb cphantom node12n Figure 4. Inductive GeneralisationThus the IG premise phantom node is generatedalong with all the other premises for a given conclusion. Then, after refinement, the individual premises within the inductive argument are determined, occurring concurrently with identification of supports for the other premises which are at the level of the inductive generalisation. In the scenario illustrated in Figure 4, for example, the first round of planning identifies that there are three supports for the conclusion p , namely, a Modus Ponens argument from each of b and c , and an inductive generalisation. After an appropriate order is determined for these three, refinement opens up the bodies of the operators, and the supports for b and c are identified, and the inductive generalisation is fleshed out to include a 1through a n . The process of building an inductive generalisation thus involves two different operators: the IG operator, which identifies that an inductive generalisation is appropriate, and the ISUP operator, which is used to select eachinductive premise. To prevent an inductive generalisation from being considered at every turn, the precondition list on IG states that there must exist at least one premise which can be used inductively - this is a bare minimum since an inductive generalisation employing a single premise is clearly very weak. Strengthening the notion of inductive generalisation is a trivial task of increasing the minimum number of premises which must exist for the application of IG to be licensed.The complete definitions for IG andISUP are given below in Figure 5.A single new function is required to express the common feature of the premises and conclusion which license the inductive generalisation – this is implemented as a simple function call to HAS_PROPERTY which determines whether or not a given property holds for a given proposition (this functionality is encapsulated in an ‘oracle’following [Cohen87]). In both IG and ISUP, the notion of ‘support’ is thus eschewed altogether and simply remains implicit in the fact that propositions are the same in respect R. It is not necessary to introduce a new notion of support.ConclusionThis paper has presented a number of features of the Rhetorica system, and has introduced the deductive, refutation and inductive generalisation operators which are employed to generate the abstract structure of an argument. InIG (Ag, P, R)Shell:Precond:HAS_PROPERTY(P,R)HAS_PROPERTY(X,R)Add:BEL(Ag, P)Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(arg(R,P))t2:BEL(Ag,IG(R,P))t3:IS_SALIENT(Ag,IG(R,P),arg(R,P))t4:POP_TOPIC(arg(R,P))ISUP (Ag, P, R)Shell:Precond:HAS_PROPERTY(X,R)Add:BEL(Ag, IG(R,P))Body: Goals:t0:PUSH_TOPIC(HAS_PROPERTY(X,R))t1:BEL(Ag,X)t2:IS_SALIENT(Ag,X,HAS_PROPERTY(X,R))t3:BEL(Ag,HAS_PROPERTY(X,R))t4 :IS_SALIENT(Ag,HAS_PROPERTY(X,R), HAS_PROPERTY(X,R))t5:POP_TOPIC(HAS_PROPERTY(X,R)Figure 5. Refutation operatorsrelated work, this abstract structure is often lost – certainly in coherence relation based NLG (such as operational RST), but also in (Elhadad, 1992) (which captures some, but not all of the commonly found argument structures) and in (Maybury, 1993) (which fails to capture the hierarchical nature of argument).Evaluation of non-task-oriented NLG is difficult, particularly when the output is not text, but a plan of primitive operators. However, several evaluative observations support the approach. First, though only touched upon here, the planning process produces a partially specified plan in which the underspecification is precisely that licensed by Cohen-like constraints on argument coherency (Reed and Long, 1997a) appropriated from empirical studies in argumentation theory. Furthermore, the approach enables these coherency constraints to be expressed in a tractable way. Finally, a comparison of system output with natural arguments (of equivalent propositional content) in a small corpus suggests that the constraints of coherency discussed here do indeed ensure the generation of coherent argument structures, and that the interplay between them and constraints of persuasive effect facilitate the construction of natural language arguments which are both coherent and effective.ReferencesBacchus, F. & Yang, Q. (1992) The Expected Value of Hierarchical Problem-Solving, AAAI-92 pp. 369—374Blair, H. (1838) Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Charles Daly, LondonCohen, R. (1987) Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse, Computational Linguistics 13/1, pp. 11—24Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck-Henkemans, F. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Elhadad, M. (1992) Generating Coherent Argument Paragraphs, COLING'92, Nantes, pp.638—644 Fisher, A. (1988) The Logic of Real Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Fox, M. & Long., D. (1995) Hierarchical Planning using Abstraction, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications 142/3, pp.197—210 Freeman, J.B. (1991) Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Foris, Dordrecht Grosz, B.J. & Sidner, C.L. (1986) Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse, Computational Linguistics12/3, pp.175—204 Haggith, M. (1996) "A meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement", PhD Thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh Hass, R.G. & Linder, D.E. (1972) Counterargument availability and the effects of message structure on persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23/2 pp.219-233Hovland, C.I. (1957) The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven Hovy, E. H. (1993) Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations, Artificial Intelligence 63, pp. 341—385Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A. (1988) Rhetorical structure theory, Text 8/3, pp. 243—281 Marcu, D. (1996) Building Up Rhetorical Structure Trees AAAI'96, Portland, OregonMaybury, M.T. (1993) Communicative Acts for Generative Natural Language Arguments AAAI-93 pp.357—364Moore, J.D. & Paris, C.L. (1994) Planning Text For Advisory Dialogues, Computational Linguistics 19/4, pp. 651—694Ohlsson, S. & Robin, N. (1994) The Power of Negative Thinking: The Central Role of Modus Tollens in Human Cognition in “Proc. of the16th Conf. of the Cognitive Science Soc.”, pp.681—686 Reed, C.A., Long, D.P. & Fox, M. (1996) An Architecture for Argumentative Dialogue Planning, in Gabbay, D. & Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) “Practical Reasoning”, Springer Verlag, pp. 555—566 Reed, C.A. & Long, D.P. (1997a) Content Ordering in the Generation of Persuasive Discourse IJCAI'97, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 1022—1027 Reed, C.A. & Long, D.P. (1997b) Multiple Subarguments in Logic, Argumentation, Rhetoric and Text Generation in Gabbay, D.M., et al. (eds)“Qualitative and Quantitative Reasoning”, Springer Verlag, pp.496-510Snoeck-Henkemans, F. (1997) Verbal indicators of argumentation and explanation in “Proc. of the OSSA Conf on Argument and Rhetoric”, St. Catharines, OntarioToulmin, S. E. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Walker, M.A. (1996) The effect of resource limits and task complexity on collaborative planning in dialogue, Artificial Intelligence 85, pp.181-243。

Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure

Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure作者：吴敏来源：《校园英语·下旬》2020年第01期【Abstract】 The construction grammar proposed by Goldberg has drawn large attention in the domestic and overseas linguistic communities. The essay is going to explain some advantages of the construction grammar and analyze the reason why it is superior to other mainstream grammars. Despite of the approval of its theoretic values， there are also some criticism about the construction grammar.【Key words】 construction grammar; argument sense; argument role; participant role【作者簡介】吴敏，南京师范大学中北学院。

1. IntroductionThe construction grammar proposed by Goldberg has been robust in recent years. It has increasingly attracted attention from different interested groups in linguistic communities. The current construction grammar can possibly be decided into four branches and the cognitive construction grammar represented by Goldberg has drawn widespread attention. In virtue of Goldberg’s theory， a lot of the syntactic phenomenon are able to be explained. While with the approvals of its theoretic values， many linguists have questioned and criticized the theory.2. The Advantages of ConstructionA construction is a gestalt， a cognitive schema， whose meaning as a whole is contributed to by its component parts， but not equal to the addition of its componential meaning. He argues that the construction is considered as the basic unit in the construction grammar. Generally speaking，construction grammar is superior to other approaches to grammar in two aspects. One of them is that，“the construction approach avoids the problem of positing implausible verb senses”. This advantage can be explained by examples as follows：a. Tom tells a story to his children.b. The man promises low price for the customer.c. The police fathered the poor girl on him.In the above three sentences， none of them have verbs which require the direct object complement. If we use the traditional approach to account for three sentences， we must hypothesize that the verb “tell”， has three-argument sense，‘X causes Y to move Z by some words’. While for verb “promise”， it argues that we need to add additional sense of talk，‘X causes Y to become Z by talking’. To account for the verb “father”， we still have to postulate an additional sense， for that father requires three arguments， namely， an agent， a theme， and an intended recipient （Goldberg，1995：9）.Construction grammar is advantageous also lie in that that it avoids a certain circularity of analysis because it makes it clear why one single verb can exist in different sentences. Let’s take the following “kick” sentences as examples.a. Tom kicked the door.b. Tom kicked Jack black and blue.c. Tom kicked the football into the room.d. Tom kicked at the football.e. Tom kicked his foot against the wall.g.The horse kicks.h. Tom kicked his way out of the classroom.Some theories argue that syntax is a projection of lexical requirement. Thus， it may be believed that in the sentence a， b， d， e， g and h，“kick” is a binary relation with agent and patient arguments which can have the transitive syntax. And in examples c and f， the verb “kick” is a three-argument. We can see there are some differences among these sentences.However， the adoption of the construction approach to the argument structure can keep us away from this puzzling problem， or， specially speaking， the circularity. For the reason that the ternary relation can be related with the tree-structural DC， also the verb has the connection with the senses （one or a few basic senses） that need to be integrated into the meaning of the construction.3. ConclusionThe construction grammar by Goldberg brings with a refreshing insight into linguistics. It helps us avoid some puzzling problems， such as circularity. For the reason that the ternary relation can be related with the tree-structural DC， also the verb has the connection with the senses （one or a fewbasic senses） that need to be integrated into the meaning of the construction. The argument role and the participant role in construction also have a great impact on the meaning of verbs.References：[1]陸俭明.构式语法理论的价值与局限[J].南京师范大学文学院学报，2008（03）.。

aconstructiongrammarapproachtoargumentstructure

• Simple clause constructions are associated directly with semantic structures which reflect scenes basic to human experience. It is proposed that the basic clause types of a language form an interrelated network, with semantic structures paired with particular forms in as general a way as possible.
The Examples of Construction (2)
(3) a. Bees are swarming in the garden. b. The garden is swarming with bees.
(4) a. I loaded the hay onto the truck. b. I loaded the truck with the hay.
• … in accounting for the conditions under which a given construction can be used felicitously
Why? Taken to be part of speakers’ competence or knowledge of language
Summary (2)
• Phrasal patterns are considered constructions if something about their form or meaning is not strictly predictable from the properties component parts or from other constructions.

英语作文的structure

英语作文的Structure: Keys to Crafting a Cohesive and Persuasive EssayIn the realm of academic writing, the structure of an essay is paramount. It serves as the backbone that supports the ideas, arguments, and evidence presented within the text. Just as a building requires a solid foundation to stand tall, an essay requires a robust structure to convey its message effectively. Let's delve into the essential elements of an English essay's structure and how they contribute to its overall coherence and persuasiveness.The introduction, often the first paragraph, sets the tone and direction for the entire essay. It should briefly introduce the topic, provide background information, and end with a clear thesis statement that outlines the main argument or point of view the essay will explore. A strong introduction captures the reader's attention and prepares them for the journey ahead.Following the introduction, the body paragraphs develop and expand upon the ideas introduced in the introduction. Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea being discussed, followed bysupporting sentences that provide evidence, examples, or analysis to back up the topic sentence. Transition wordsand phrases are crucial in the body paragraphs to create a smooth flow of ideas and maintain the reader's engagement.The conclusion, the final paragraph of the essay, ties everything together and leaves a lasting impression on the reader. It should restate the main ideas and arguments from the body paragraphs, provide a summary of the evidence presented, and end with a concluding statement that leaves the reader with a final thought or takeaway. The conclusion should leave the reader feeling satisfied and well-informed. Throughout the essay, effective use of language is essential. This includes the use of vocabulary that is both precise and appropriate to the topic, as well as sentence structure that varies to maintain interest and engagement. Clear and concise language helps the reader follow the argument and understand the points being made.In addition to these basic elements, it's important to consider the overall flow and pacing of the essay. The introduction should lead smoothly into the body paragraphs, and the conclusion should bring the argument to asatisfying close. Avoiding冗余信息 and staying focused on the main argument helps maintain the coherence of the essay. In conclusion, the structure of an English essay is crucial to its success. A clear and logical structure that includes an engaging introduction, well-developed body paragraphs, and a satisfying conclusion, combined with effective language use and pacing, creates an essay that is both cohesive and persuasive. With these keys in mind, any writer can craft a powerful essay that captivates thereader and conveys its message effectively.**英语作文结构：构建连贯且有说服力的文章的关键** 在学术写作领域，作文的结构至关重要。

StructureOfArgument论点的结构2013版教学PPT

China Debate Education Network:
Structure of Argument
论点（论证单元）*的结构
翻译：曾庆熹
*按照逻辑学术语规范，应译为“论点”。但因长期以来“论点”一词多被误用为
指称“论断”，故部分英辩专家曾将其译为“论证单元”，以示区别。
Elements of Arguments
论据
论断
论据保留
Argument With Combined Structure
强制要求意味着更多人会做当系安全不强制时，很少有人系
应强制要求系安全带
除非是儿童座椅中的儿童
系安全带能增加车祸中的存活率
Argument With Combined Structure
逻辑链：危险性大的应该被更安全的可选项替代
除非是在有隔离措施的情况下（译者注：例如专设吸烟区）
Argument with Combined Structure
多关联论据型论点
• Consists of multiple pieces of evidence linked with one another.包含多个相互关联的论据
逻辑链论据
论点的构成要素
• 论断: 论点中（被推导出）的结论部分。
• 论据: 断言所依存的任何信息依据，它支撑着
断言。
• 逻辑链: 论据与论断之间的逻辑桥梁。
• 保留: 并非所有的论点都有, 它约定了该论点的
例外情况。（译者注：意即什么情况不在该论点的讨论范围）
Structure of a Simple Argument
简单论点的结构
• 在本例中, 充当证据的内容实际上是一个已经经过推导被观众接受了的断言。

a constructional approach to argument structure Goldberg 1955

(30) a. Sam carefully broke the eggs into the bowl. b. *Sam unintentionally broke the eggs onto the floor).

(31) a. This room was slept in by George Washington.

c. He cried himself to sleep. (Cf. chapter 8)
…
Therefore evidence that
a phenomenon is idiosyncratic is not evidence that it is lexical, unless “ lexical” is defined so as to describe all and only idiosyncratic items. But once the definition of “ lexical” is extended to this degree, the inevitable consequence is that the lexical is no longer neatly delimited from the syntactic (cf. DiSciullo & Williams 1987).
No clear cut
Semantics
& pragmatics Lexicon & syntax Grammatical constructions & rhetoric constructions
Advantages of construction grammar

argument-structurePPT课件

.
13
Theta Roles
Agent/causer
Doer of some action or the entity which
intentionally initiates the action expressed by the
predicate
E.g.: Carol browsed the webpage.
.
2
‘She said that she hated Bill.’
IP
Spec
I’
NP I
VP
Spec
V’
V
Comp
CP
Spec
C’
C
IP
She PAST say
that she hates Bill
.
3
‘She might come to join us.’
IP
Spec
I’
NP I
VP
Spec
‘他摔断了一条腿’
主语倒装句 ‘(他)发生了一件车祸’ ‘(他)来了不少客人’ ‘(他)起了一身鸡皮疙瘩’
.
22
What theories are given in Huang (2007) and Shi (2007) respectively to expain ‘王冕死了父亲’ and ‘(他)来了不少客人’?
because the “it” here only fulfils the syntactic
requirement, and we cannot say: “*What is raining?”
“*It.”.
.
9
Proposition: predicate & argument

argument structure语言学名词解释

Argument structure（论元结构）是语言学中用来描述一个动词（或其他谓词）和其相关成分之间关系的概念。

论元结构涉及到一个谓词所需的论元（成分），以及这些论元在句子中的结构和语法角色。

以下是对 argument structure 的详细解释：1. 动词的论元（Arguments of a Verb）：•主语（Subject）：负责执行或承受动作的实体。

•宾语（Object）：动作的直接受事者或影响者。

•间接宾语（Indirect Object）：表示受益或受害的实体，通常是动作的接收者。

•补语（Complement）：表示动作的具体属性或状态。

2. 论元的结构：•单一论元结构：一些动词只需要一个论元，例如：sleep（睡觉）。

•双论元结构：大多数动词需要两个论元，例如：give（给）。

•三论元结构：一些动词需要三个论元，例如：teach（教）。

3. 论元的语法角色（Syntactic Roles of Arguments）：•主语：通常在句子中扮演主动者或执行者的角色。

•宾语：通常在句子中扮演受动作影响的角色。

•间接宾语：通常在句子中表示受益或受害的角色。

•补语：通常在句子中表示动作的性质、状态或方向。

4. 论元结构的变化：•被动结构：可以通过将动作的执行者变为句子的主语，从而改变论元结构。

•中动结构：一些语言中存在中动结构，表示动作同时涉及到主动者和受事者。

5. 语义角色（Semantic Roles）：•施事者（Agent）：动作的执行者。

•受事者（Theme）：动作的直接影响者。

•经验者（Experiencer）：对动作有感知或体验的实体。

•目标者（Goal）：动作的目标或受益者。

6. 例子：•双论元结构：–She eats an apple.（主语 - She，宾语 - an apple）•三论元结构：–He gives a gift to Mary.（主语 - He，间接宾语 - Mary，宾语 - a gift）Argument structure 在语言学中是一个重要的概念，有助于理解动词与其周围成分之间的关系，以及动作执行者、影响者等在句子中的角色。

《当代语言学教程》之第二章“句法假设”

《当代语⾔学教程》之第⼆章“句法假设” argument的翻译论元、主⽬，你⽤哪⼀个？最近看到两则关于argument的翻译：第⼀则（陆丙甫：2009）a r g u m e n t 现在流⾏的翻译是 “ 论元 ” ，其中的 “ 论 ” ⼤概取⾃ a r g u m e n t 的 “ 争论、论点 ” 意义。

但实际上语⾔学中的 a r g u m e n t 跟 “ 争论 ”⽆关。

以前也有翻译成 “ 主⽬” 的。

从意义上说，倒是“ 主⽬” ⽐较好，是构成命题的“ 主要项⽬” 。

“ 论元 ” 的流⾏，可能的⼀个原因是，“ 论 ”也使⼈想到理论，似乎理论⾊彩较浓。

“ 约定俗成 ” 有时由⼀些偶然的误会等造成，也是很⽆奈的事情。

第⼆则（罗天华：2012）argument、argument structure的译名历来不⼀致。

例如argument在⽂献中有⼈把它译为“ 论元、变元、项、动元、主⽬、语义⾓⾊、必须格、配价⾓⾊、谓价、逻辑项、主⽬语 ” ，argument structure 则译为 “ 论元结构、谓价结构、主⽬结构 ” ( 曾剑平、司显柱 2 0 0 8 ) 。

从构词法来看，argument 是 a r g u e + m e n t 。

不过，若按照词法结构对译，把词根 argument译为 “ 论 ” ，附缀⼀ m e n t 译为 “ 元” ，就偏离了该词的本义。

在⽣成语法⾥，argument指的是谓词所联系的、配有题元⾓⾊的名词性短语 ( ⼀般要求是指称性成分 ) 。

其⾃⾝⽆所谓 “ 论 ” ，并⾮ “ 论述 ” 的主要对象。

相⽐之下，“ 主⽬” ⼀词作argument的译名显然合适得多：“ ⽬” 有“ 项” 、“ ( ⼀ ) 群” 之义，“ 主⽬” 亦即 ( 核⼼动词联系的 ) “ 主要项、主要的名词短语 ” 。

陆丙甫( 2 0 0 9 a ) 指出“ 主⽬” 是构成命题的“ 主要项⽬” ) 。

coordinate structure语言学

coordinate structure语言学Coordinate Structure语言学，又称协调结构语言学，是一种研究句子结构的语言学理论。

它关注的是句子中并列的成分（如词语、短语、从句等）的组合方式和语义关系。

Coordinate Structure语言学通过研究并列结构的构成、功能和语义等方面，揭示了语言表达中并列关系的重要性，并对句子的结构和语义进行了深入探讨。

在Coordinate Structure语言学中，最基本的概念是并列关系（coordination）。

并列是指两个或多个成分在语法上平等地连接在一起，且彼此之间具有对等的语义关系。

在句子中，这些成分可以是词语、短语、从句等，它们通过连词（如“和”、“或”、“而”等）或标点符号（如逗号、分号等）进行连接。

并列结构可以出现在主语、谓语、宾语、状语、定语等句子成分中，表达出并列关系的同时保持句子结构的平衡和对称。

通过并列结构，人们可以在句子中传达出多个成分的相互关系，增强句子的表达力和信息量。

在Coordinate Structure语言学中，还有一些重要的概念需要理解。

首先是对等连接（parataxis），指的是成分之间没有层级关系，只是通过连词或标点符号连接在一起；而非对等连接（hypotaxis）则指的是成分之间存在层级关系，其中的一部分成分作为主要成分，而其他成分则作为从属成分。

其次，是并列句（coordinate clause）和并列成分（coordinate constituent）的区分。

并列句是完整的、可以独立成句的句子，它具有主语、谓语和其他必要的成分；而并列成分则是句子中的独立于句子类型的附属成分，它可以是独立的词语、短语、从句等，并列成分之间的关系相对自由。

Coordinate Structure语言学主要关注句子的结构和语义，通过对并列结构的分析和研究，可以揭示出句子中成分之间的关系和作用。

例如，在主语并列结构中，两个或多个主语共同表示出动作的执行者，这体现了人们将不同的实体并列起来在句子中表达的需求。

structure造句

structure造句structure的意思是结构，构造，组织，体系，机构，建筑物，结构物，条理。

它的造句如下：1、Repair had to be in sympathy with the original structure.2、The theory of structure on which later chemistry was predicated.3、Check that your structure will give shape to your essay.structure造句1、One of the panels had become detached from the main structure.一块镶板已从主体结构上脱落。

2、Grammar information enables students to map the structure of a foreign language onto their own.语法知识使学生能够把外语结构和母语结构联系起来。

3、How well does the teacher structure the lessons?老师对课程组织安排得如何structure造句The structure is sheltered by a high embankment . 桥被一个高堤挡住了。

Steel structures performed reasonably well .钢结构的性能相当好。

Nuclear deformations confirm shell structure .原子核形变证实壳层结构。

It will not encroach on important structures .它不侵害重要组织。

The structures described below are idealized .以下描述的结构是理想化的。

Stable is a structure for housing horses .马厩是饲养马的房子。

英语作文的structure

英语作文的structureEnglish:In English writing, the structure of an essay typically consists of three main parts: an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction serves to grab the reader's attention and provide a brief overview of the topic that will be discussed. It often includes a thesis statement that outlines the main point or argument of the essay. The body paragraphs follow the introduction and provide detailed information, examples, and evidence to support the thesis statement. Each paragraph typically focuses on a specific idea or aspect related to the topic and is structured with a topic sentence, supporting details, and a concluding sentence. The conclusion wraps up the essay by summarizing the main points discussed in the body paragraphs and restating the thesis statement in a new way. It may also offer some final thoughts, questions for further consideration, or suggestions for future research or action. Overall, the structure of an English essay should be logical, organized, and clear to help the reader follow the writer's argument effectively.中文翻译:在英文写作中，一篇文章的结构通常包括三个主要部分：引言、正文段落和结论。

coordinate structure语言学 -回复

coordinate structure语言学-回复coordinate structure是语言学中关于句子结构的研究领域，该领域探讨如何对句子中的成分进行组合和串联，以实现语言的表达和理解。

本文将一步一步回答coordinate structure相关问题，帮助读者了解这一语言学范畴。

一、什么是coordinate structure？coordinate structure是指复合句中由并列连词（如and、or）连接的两个或更多的成分。

在coordinate structure中，各个成分具有相同的重要性和地位，相互之间并无从属关系，而是平等连接的。

二、coordinate structure的特征是什么？1. 平行性：coordinate structure中的各个成分在句法和语义上是平等的，没有从属关系。

2. 选择性：各个成分之间的连接通常使用并列连词，如and、or、but 等。

3. 可铰链性：coordinate structure中的成分可以灵活组合、拆分或重排，而不会改变句子的基本意义。

这种特征使得复合句的表达具有更多的灵活性和变化性。

三、coordinate structure主要有哪些类型？1. 平行结构：各个并列成分相同或相似的句法结构，如主语并列、宾语并列、谓语并列等。

例如：“David reads books and plays basketball.”2. 不对称结构：并列成分之间在句法结构或语义上存在差异，但仍然保持并列关系。

例如：“She likes swimming but doesn't like running.”3. 多元结构：一个并列连接词连接三个或更多成分，构成复杂的coordinate structure。

例如：“He is tall, handsome, and intelligent.”四、coordinate structure的句法分析方法是什么？在句法分析中，coordinate structure可以使用结构分析法或标记法进行分析。

structure的用法总结大全

structure的用法总结大全（学习版）编制人：__________________审核人：__________________审批人：__________________编制学校：__________________编制时间：____年____月____日序言下载提示：该文档是本店铺精心编制而成的，希望大家下载后，能够帮助大家解决实际问题。

文档下载后可定制修改，请根据实际需要进行调整和使用，谢谢!并且，本店铺为大家提供各种类型的经典范文，如英语单词、英语语法、英语听力、英语知识点、语文知识点、文言文、数学公式、数学知识点、作文大全、其他资料等等，想了解不同范文格式和写法，敬请关注!Download tips: This document is carefully compiled by this editor.I hope that after you download it, it can help you solve practical problems. The document can be customized and modified after downloading, please adjust and use it according to actual needs, thank you!In addition, this shop provides various types of classic sample essays, such as English words, English grammar, English listening, English knowledge points, Chinese knowledge points, classical Chinese, mathematical formulas, mathematics knowledge points, composition books, other materials, etc. Learn about the different formats and writing styles of sample essays, so stay tuned!structure的用法总结大全structure的意思n. 结构；构造；建筑物；体系vt. 构成，排列；安排；structure的用法用作名词(n.)A flower has quite a complicated structure.一朵花的结构相当复杂。

英文写作-Lecture 15 Argumentation Structure of AW

Argumentation is all around you (1)
Big issues Should English be taught as one of the compulsory
subjects at all primary schools? Politics should be cancelled in the National Entrance
Should young people be encouraged to buy apartments of their own at an early age, e.g. 27, much earlier than those of other countries?
Should university students be encouraged to read (more) classical works, rather than on-line fiction?
Examinations for Graduate Programs. (?) What is the purpose of university education? For
turning out skillful workers or for transforming people into citizens with integrity? China should continue tightening its monetary policy. Or should she not? Is real estates contributing to or undermining China’s economy?
What is argumentative writing?

structure谐音记忆法

Structure谐音记忆法：一种创新的学习工具
在学习过程中，我们常常会遇到一些难记的概念或者词汇，这时，我们就需要借助一些记忆技巧来帮助我们更好地理解和记住这些内容。

其中，一种有趣且有效的记忆方法就是“structure谐音记忆法”。

"Structure"这个单词的发音与中文的“结构”非常相似，因此我们可以利用这个谐音来进行记忆。

当我们遇到一个复杂的概念或词汇时，我们可以尝试将它们与“structure”进行联系，通过构建一个有逻辑的“结构”，使我们的记忆更加牢固。

例如，在学习英语语法时，我们会遇到许多复杂的语法规则，如“现在完成时态”的用法。

如果我们只是死记硬背，那么很容易就会忘记。

但是，如果我们使用“structure谐音记忆法”，就可以把这条规则与“结构”进行联想。

我们可以想象，这个规则就像一座大楼的结构，每一个部分都有其特定的位置和作用，只有当所有部分都按照正确的方式组合在一起，这座大楼才能稳固地矗立在那里。

同样的，只有当所有的语法规则都按照正确的顺序和方式使用，句子才能表达出我们想要的意思。

再比如，我们在学习生物知识时，可能会遇到各种复杂的细胞结构。

这时，我们也可以使用“structure谐音记忆法”。

我们可以把细胞的各种结构想象成一个城市的建筑群，每个建筑都有其特定的功能和位置。

这样，我们就能更清晰地理解并记住细胞的结构。

总的来说，“structure谐音记忆法”是一种富有创意的记忆方法，它能帮助我们更好地理解和记忆复杂的内容。

只要我们善于运用这种方法，就能在学习中取得更好的效果。

Predicate-Argument Structure

Symbolization
• Verb phrase: Polyadic Predicates • Connectives:
All the beads are either red or blue: ∀x(Rx V Bx) All the beads are red or all the beads are blue: (∀xRx)V(∀xBx) ∀ ∀
Notes
• The lexicons of sentential logic are included in Q. • Is A(x) a formula? Depends on the systems. • It can be treated as an atomic formula, whose truth values has to be determined by the so-called value-assignment semantics. • But in this book, it has to be ∀xA(x/c) for A(c); no free variables in this book. This is convenient to Truth-tree method. • Scope: Usually what next to the quantifier. But in this book, means the whole: ∀x(Fx→Gx).
Examples
• ∀xFx & p, ∀x(Ax→r) are formulas. • Convention: ∀x∃yF2xy = ∀x∃yFxy ∃ ∃ • But better not ∀x∃y(Fxy→Fa). ∃ • ∀x∃yF1xy, ∀xF2x are not formulas. ∃ • ∀aFa, ∃pF(p&q) are not formulas.