The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets
of Persuasive Arguments
Daniel Marcu 1
Abstract. This paper provides a body of knowledge that
characterizes persuasive arguments, which is thoroughly
grounded in empirical data derived from communication stud-
ies, psychology, and social studies of persuasion. The paper
also discusses the limitations of current theories of argumen-
tation and systems in accommodating both the conceptual
and linguistic facets of persuasive arguments.
dose of the attacking material strong enough to stimulate his
defenses but not strong enough to overwhelm him" [13, p.37].
In examining the problems that an NLG system will have to
solve in generating an inoculation message, I assume that the
system has access to a knowledge base that contains general
information about smoking, information about the teenagers
and their beliefs, and information concerning the structure
of sound arguments. To determine the content to be gen-
1 Introduction erated, a traditional NLG system would evaluate rst the
If natural language generation systems that argue convinc- knowledge that a generic teenager has about smoking. The
ingly and adapt to dierent users are to become more
exible system would infer that teenagers already know that smoking
and procient, they will eventually have to make use of more
knowledge of how persuasive arguments can be represented,
generated, and understood. In this paper, I provide a body
of such knowledge that is well grounded in empirical data
derived from communication studies, psychology, and social
studies of persuasion.
To support my claims and provide a better understanding
of the heuristics that could be applied for constructing per-
suasive arguments, I consider a concrete task: the generation
of a text that is designed to convince teenagers not to smoke.
I walk through the steps that a natural language generation
(NLG) system would take in accomplishing this task, and,
at each stage of the generation process, i.e., argument selec-
tion, argument organization, and argument realization, I ap-
ply techniques that are likely to increase the persuasiveness of
is an unhealthy habit, so it would select no information to con-
vey about this topic. It would be likely to select information
about the attack that the teenager is going to be subjected to
and, using its knowledge of structure of arguments, it would
also select some data to increase the credibility of its claim. If
the system has outstanding inferential capabilities, it would
also select some information to contrast the present state of
aairs (children want to stay non-smokers) with the one that
the majority of teenagers will experience (most teenagers will
start smoking).
The planning modules would determine the order into which
this information is going to be conveyed: an order that is con-
sistent with a sound argument structure is one in which the
contrast between the current attitude that is incompatible
with smoking and the future attack from the peer group, to
the text. Hence, I examine how the text is modied incremen-
tally from one that is neutral to one that is persuasive. In the
light of the requirements derived from my study of persuasive
arguments, I evaluate the capability of current argumentation
theories and systems to accommodate the representation and
generation of persuasive arguments.
2 Generating persuasive arguments
2.1 General remarks
Consider an NLG system that is posed the task of generat-
ing a message to persuade teenagers to not start smoking.
Behavioral studies [16] show that children are born and live
start smoking, is presented rst. The contrast can be made
more salient if it is followed by the statistical data, so let us as-
sume that the planning modules choose to generate this data
afterwards. The realization process would then choose appro-
priate syntactic structures and lexical items to represent the
information. It is possible that the output for this generation
task would look similar to the one given below.2
(1) No matter how much one wants to stay a non-smoker, the
truth is that the pressure to smoke in junior high is greater than
it will be any other time of one's life: only 25% of the young
adults will not pick up a cigarette and let curiosity take over.
About 30% will become experimental smokers. Of those who
will start smoking, about 90% will end up with a pack and a
lighter for the rest of their lives. We know that 3,000 teens start
through the rst decade of their lives with a natural aversion smoking each day, although it is a fact that 90% of them once
for smoking. However, during the transition from primary to thought that smoking was something that they'd never do.
middle grades, this attitude deteriorates [16] and produces in Text (1) presents a sound argument, it is linguistically cor-
some adolescents a growing chance of experimental and reg- rect, and it re
ects accurately the knowledge of the system,
ular smoking. One way to prevent this is by presenting argu- but is not likely to convince too many teenagers to refrain
ments that inoculate, i.e., \by exposing the person to a weak from smoking. I discuss now the features that text (1) needs
in order to be convincing, by modifying it incrementally so
1 Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, M5S 3G4. 2 All the examples used in this paper were generated manually.

c 1996 D. Marcu
Proceedings of the ECAI 96 Workshop Gaps and Bridges:
New Directions in Planning and Natural Language Generation.
Edited by K. Jokinen, M. Maybury and M. Zock.
that it will re
ect heuristics prescribed by current studies teenagers that smoking is a detrimental habit, that it costs
in persuasive communication. The nal text (4) is a slightly money, and aects peoples' breath since they are likely to be
modied version of a text used in an adult-led video, Up in persuaded both by logical and emotional arguments [16]. The
Smoke, which is discussed by Pfau [16, p. 106]. Due to the persuasive eect can be increased if the involvement of the
nature of the example that I use, some of the heuristics that source is highlighted: we know that smoking : : :. Because it is
I apply may not be appropriate outside the medical domain; a complete argument, the new paragraph (2) can be realized
however, I am not aware of empirical data that supports or
refutes this assumption.
2.2 Argument selection in persuasive
argumentation
Receiver factors. Contrary to NLG wisdom, a system ca-
pable of generating persuasive text will also have to generate
information that is known to the audience [12, 9], i.e., the sys-
tem will have to reinforce the recipients' (hearers') beliefs that
encourage the desired behavior and to argue against the be-
liefs that inhibit it. This requires a quite sophisticated model
of the user with regard to likes and dislikes.
either as a prex or a sux of the initial text (1).
(2) I don't know why people waste their breath on these
cigarettes. We know that smoking is a detrimental habit and
that it costs money.
2.3 Argument organization in persuasive
argumentation
The NLG community has long acknowledged that the same se-
mantic information can be conveyed through a variety of text,
paragraph, and sentence structures. Communication studies
emphasize further the role that structure plays, because al-
though the understanding of a message decreases smoothly
as the same semantic information is presented in a less and
Recent research in the eld of behavioral decision mak- less structured way, the persuasive eects vanish rapidly [2].
ing [9] shows that persuasion is not a constant function of In persuasive argumentation, one should capture the at-
the beliefs and attitudes, but that it rather varies depending tention of the audience by making the message unusual, by
on the stage of change that the recipient is in. In the stages- presenting the arguments in a novel way [17]. One way to cap-
of-change model for example [6, 9], there are ve stages that
range from precontemplative, the stage in which the recipient
does not recognize the problem or the need for a change, to
maintenance, the stage in which the recipient has maintained
a new behavior for more than six months. A recipient may be
stalled at one stage and need a \push" to the next. It is ob-
vious that the arguments of a message should dier radically
according to the stage that the recipient is in: the informa-
tion provided to a person who is not aware that smoking is
unhealthy should be dierent from the information provided
to a person who has been trying to quit smoking for more
than three months.
The receiver's interest aects the argument selection as
well: if it is high, the NLG system should select only sound
arguments; if it is low, the system should select as many argu-
ments as possible, even if they are unsound, because this will
ture the attention of the receiver is by starting with a strong
remark that establishes a connection between the source and
the teenagers [12]. Given the information in texts (1) and (2),
one can infer that smoking is a stupid habit. It may be a
good idea to capture the attention of the reader by explicitly
stating this. Such an abrupt start not only increases the de-
gree of involvement of the source and the familiarity between
the source and the receiver, but it also constitutes a warning
that precedes the persuasive attack that is to follow [12]. The
credibility of the source can be also increased if the statistical
data is assigned a high-credibility source: instead of we know
that, I use research tells us.
Depending on the degree of awareness of the audience,
dierent orderings of the arguments to be presented should
be chosen. For an unaware audience, the persuasive message
should be composed such that supporting arguments are pre-
have a better eect on the receiver [12, 2]. A key factor is the sented rst, and refuting arguments second. For an audience
system's ability to reason about the beliefs of the recipient that is aware, persuasion increases if the message refutes rst
and to determine those that support the goal of the message the goal to be achieved and supports it afterwards [12]. In
and those that contradict it. Since it is easier to introduce, our example, when inoculation is performed, the teenagers
reinforce, or build on existing beliefs in a campaign than it are unaware of the pressure that they are going to be ex-
is to try to change existing and entrenched attitudes [19], a
system should select and construct its arguments around the
beliefs that support the goal.
Source and message factors. The credibility, attractive-
ness, and power of the source of the message play another
important role in argument selection: the more an argument
emphasizes them, the more persuasive it is [17].
Research in communication studies [17] distinguishes be-
tween the persuasive eects that logical and emotional ar-
guments have on a particular audience. For example, logical
appeals are eective when the audience is sophisticated, when
the competence of the source is highlighted, and when the goal
of the appeal is stimulating cognitive change, while emotional
appeals are better to be used when the audience is indier-
ent and when the goal of the appeal is producing eective
change [17].
Several heuristics can be applied by an NLG system to in-
posed to: therefore, it is better to support rst the aversion
for smoking that they have, and present them only afterwards
the arguments that refute this aversion.
One of the key factors in persuasive argumentation is the
continuous reinforcement of the beliefs that the receivers hold
and the emphasis that one should put on cumulative risks
that people tend to underestimate [9]. One can apply this
technique to increase the persuasiveness of text that results
from combining paragraphs (1) and (2). For example, both
smoking smells and is bad or No matter how one feels about
smoking now and no matter how bad one thinks it is, or even
if one promises one will never start, 75% of the teenagers will
try it at least once (text (3) below) add no new information
to text that results from appending paragraphs (1) and (2),
but it reinforces over and over the beliefs of the teenagers.
An increase in persuasion can be obtained by explicitly
including in the text the conclusions that are implicit [12].
crease the persuasive eect of text (1). The system can remind Explicit conclusions should go either rst or last, but not in
The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets of Persuasive Arguments 2 D. Marcu
the middle. If the conclusion is shattering, as in the case of \stronger" language and \pathetic" words [2], and specic
telling a patient that they have cancer, the conclusion should terms instead of abstract terms [18, p. 142] increases the de-
go last because after such news, the patient will not be able gree of persuasiveness. In my ongoing example, these recom-
to follow the rest of the message [19]. mendations will make us prefer cancer sticks over cigarettes;
In my ongoing renement of the inoculation message, I messy over detrimental, and bucks over money.
make explicit the conclusions of each part: I use the metaphoric Increasing the denotative, spatial, and temporal specicity
comparison between smoking and baseball as an intermediate of a text is another way to make an argument more persua-
conclusion; and a direct inference | but something or some- sive [15]. The denotative specicity can be increased by stat-
one convinced them otherwise | as the nal conclusion of the
warning. This corresponds to the cue of using a climax order-
ing [12] and to avoiding the saying of the best things, or the
conclusions, in the middle of the text.
The persuasive technique of framing seems to belong en-
tirely to a micro-organization level of arguments. Despite con-
troversies that exist with respect to psychological explana-
tions of the fear appeals and the relation between fear and
persuasion [17], empirical data suggests that in order to con-
vince, arguments have to be framed such that the bad con-
sequences are emphasized [14]. Hence, although 25% of the
young adults will not start smoking and 75% of the young
adults will start smoking have the same semantics, I prefer
the latter one.
(3) Stupid habit! I don't know why people waste their breath on
these cigarettes. We know that smoking is a detrimental habit.
It smells, it's bad, and it costs money. As they say in baseball
\three strikes and you're out".
No matter how much one wants to stay a non-smoker, the
truth is that the pressure to smoke in junior high is greater than
it will be any other time of one's life: 75% of the young adults
will pick up a cigarette and let curiosity take over.
No matter how one feels about smoking now and no mat-
ter how bad one thinks it is, or even if one promises one will
never start, 75% of the teenagers will try it at least once. About
30% will become experimental smokers. Of those who will start
smoking, about 90% will end up with a pack and a lighter for
the rest of their lives. Research tells us that 3,000 teens start
smoking each day, although it is a fact that 90% of them once
thought that smoking was something that they'd never do. But
something or someone convinced them otherwise.
2.4 Lexical realization in persuasive
argumentation
A general heuristic for increasing persuasiveness is to use an
intensely worded message if the recipients agree initially with
the source, but less wordy if they disagree [12]. The large
amount of redundancy and repetition that I have used so far
supports this recommendation, since teenagers agree initially
with the position of the message.
People have trouble reasoning with probabilities and there
is a great disagreement about how dierent probabilistic val-
ues are linked with qualitative adjectives [9]. But as we have
already seen (section 2.3), the understanding of a message is
an important prerequisite for the success of a persuasive com-
munication act [17]. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that re-
ing the agent, object, and action explicitly, the spatial imme-
diacy by using demonstratives that are \close" (this, these,
here not that, those, there), and temporal immediacy by us-
ing the present tense in reference to present events. The ap-
plication of the heuristics that are described above yields the
following text:
(4) Stupid habit! I don't know why people waste their breath
on these things | literally. We used to call them \cancer sticks".
I know that you think that smoking is a messy habit, right? It
stinks, it's bad, and it costs bucks. As they say in baseball \three
strikes and you're out".
No matter how much you want to stay a non-smoker, the
truth is that the pressure to smoke in junior high is greater than
it will be any other time of your life. Three out of four young
adults | and you are one of them | will pick up a cigarette
and let curiosity take over.
Think about it! No matter how you feel about smoking now,
no matter how bad you think it is, or even if you swear you'll
never start, three of every four of you will try it at least once.
Almost a third of you will become experimental smokers, and
many of you will end up with a pack and a lighter full time.
Researchers tell us that 3,000 teens start smoking each day, and
you can count on the fact that most of them, like you, once
thought that smoking was something that they'd never do. But
something or someone convinced them otherwise.
If one now compares texts (1) through (4) it will become ev-
ident that persuasive argumentation assumes appropriate de-
cisions with respect to argument selection, organization, and
realization.
3 Why are representing and generating
persuasive arguments dicult?
Argument selection. The strategies that are employed by
current NLG systems for content selection (schemata, plan
operators, and NLG front-ends) are unable to account for the
selection of persuasive arguments. One of the reasons is that
none of these strategies provides a principled way for select-
ing arguments that use evidence that is known to the hearer
or arguments that argue against the hearer's beliefs. Con-
sequently, it is natural to ask ourselves whether research in
argumentation could provide an adequate solution. Unfortu-
nately, the answer is negative: conceptual structures that are
proposed by research on argumentation are not adequate for
distinguishing between arguments that reinforce the beliefs of
a hearer and arguments that try to refute them; or between
arguments that are logical, emotional, and unsound.
placing quantitative qualiers with qualitative qualiers that
are prescribed by socio-linguistic research is a heuristic that
can be used for increasing persuasiveness [9]. Socio-linguistic
research [4] prescribes for some audiences, for example, the
use of virtually always or high probability instead of 99%, and
unlikely or doubtful instead of 20%.
Lexical choice in general plays an important role in persua-
sive argumentation. One way to increase persuasiveness is by
Independent of the mathematical abstractions that they
use, conceptual approaches derive their strength from the
careful characterization of the structures (trees and graphs)
that pertain to sound arguments [18, 3, 5, 11]: their under-
standing is shown to yield certain conclusions independent
of the propositions that they relate [3] and to alleviate se-
mantic ambiguities [8]. One of the weaknesses of the concep-
tual structures that have been proposed for representing ar-
eliminating all the qualiers that express uncertainty, such guments previous to this workshop is that they have been
as perhaps, maybe or possibly. The use of metaphors [12], totally disconnected from user models and as a result, NLG
The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets of Persuasive Arguments 3 D. Marcu
systems could not easily accommodate the dierent levels of and hearer; a lack of argumentative theories that can account
involvement and interest, moral proles, and cognitive stages for the composition of multiple arguments, repeating evidence
that are to be exploited in a persuasive setting. The papers by and conclusions, etc.; and an insucient understanding of the
Zukerman, Korb, and McConachy and Quignard and Baker in role that lexico-grammatical choices have on making an argu-
these proceedings provide, however, a rst cut at these issues.
Argument organization. As far as I know, research in
argumentation has been concerned only with the structure
of single arguments; and likewise, NLG systems that provide
explanations and advice [7, 11] don't explore the planning
mechanisms that would account for the generation of texts
that consist of multiple arguments, i.e., arguments that both
support and refute a given claim. But as I have discussed
in section 2, in order to generate persuasive arguments, one
needs also a theory that would describe how arguments can be
put together in a coherent sequence and explain why certain
multi-argument structures are more persuasive than others.
One would also need theories to explain why for the same
argument structure one certain framing is more persuasive
than another. None of the techniques employed in NLG and
no argument structures can account for the persuasive eect
that repeating information or reinforcing beliefs has; nor can
they determine when such heuristics be applied. The same
shortcomings are apparent with respect to the role of explicit
conclusions in argument structures and the nature of the pro-
cess that takes the decision whether to include them in the
ment more or less convincing.
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Graeme Hirst for his
astute comments and for helping me polish the ideas presented
in this paper. This reasearch was supported by a grant from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.
REFERENCES
[1] J.C. Anscombre and O. Ducrot, L'argumentation dans la
langue, Pierre Mardaga, Bruxelles, 1983.
[2] E.P. Bettinghaus and M.J. Cody, Persuasive Communication,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1987.
[3] L. Birnbaum, `Argument molecules: a functional representa-
tion of argument structures', in AAAI{82, pp. 63{65.
[4] G.D. Bryant and G.R. Norman, `Expressions of probability:
Words and numbers', The New England Journal of Medicine,
302, (1980).
[5] R. Cohen, `Analyzing the structure of argumentative dis-
course', Computational Linguistics, 13 (1-2), 11{24, (1987).
[6] C.C. DiClemente and J.O. Prochaska, `Processes and stages
of self-change: Coping and competence in smoking behavioral
change', in Coping and Substance Abuse, eds., S. Shiman
nal text. and T.A. Willis, 319{343, Academic Press, (1985).
Argument realization. My review of persuasive argumen- [7] M. Elhadad, Using Argumentation to Control Lexical Choice:
tation (section 2) has revealed a number of lexical character-
istics that cannot be incorporated easily in current theories of
argumentation. On one hand, conceptual schemata [18, 3, 5]
seem to be too abstract for dealing with the dierences be-
tween more or less intensely worded arguments, and for ex-
A Functional Unication Implementation, Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Columbia University, 1992.
[8] S. Guez, `A computational model for arguments understand-
ing', in COLING{92, volume 2, pp. 132{137, Helsinki, (1990).
[9] D.R. Holtgrave, B.J. Tinsley, and L.S. Kay, `Encouraging risk
reduction. A decision-making approach to message design',
plaining the impact that the use of strong language, specic in Designing Health Messages. Approaches from Communi-
terms, and denotative, spatial, and temporal specic terms
has on an argument. On the other hand, linguistic accounts
were interested more in capturing the relation between lin-
guistic cues and certain argumentative structures [5, 8] than
the actual linguistic realization of the arguments.
An exception to this, is Anscombre and Ducrot's approach [1],
which depicts a semantic theory in which some words carry
besides the usual semantic meaning, an argumentative conno-
tation that orients the argumentative interpretation and the
continuation of a discourse independently of the informative
content it may carry. Elhadad [7] relies heavily on Ansombre
and Ducrot's theory in building an NLG system that inte-
grates both the conceptual and linguistic facets of argumen-
tation, but his approach does not seem to be able to account
for all the linguistic and conceptual features that were shown
to characterize persuasive texts.
4 Conclusion
In contrast with previous approaches that characterize the
in
uence of pragmatic factors on NLG and the generation
of texts with aect [10], this paper provides a collection of
features that characterize persuasive arguments that is thor-
oughly grounded in empirical data derived from communica-
tion studies, psychology, and social studies of persuasion. The
paper also analyzes the inability of current argumentation
theories and systems to accommodate the representation and
generation of persuasive arguments. This inability is shown
to stem mainly from a formalization of argumentative struc-
tures that has not emphasized enough the role of the speaker
The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets of Persuasive Arguments
cation Theory and Public Health Practice, eds., E. Maibach
and R.L. Parrott, 24{40, Sage Publications, (1995).
[10] E.H. Hovy, Generating Natural Language Under Pragmatic
Constraints, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1988.
[11] M.T. Maybury, `Communicative acts for generating natural
language arguments', in AAAI{93, pp. 357{364, (1993).
[12] W.J. McGuire, `The nature of attitudes and attitude change',
in The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds., G. Lindzey and
E. Aronson, volume 3, 136{314, Addison-Wesley, (1968).
[13] W.J. McGuire, `A vaccine for brainwash', Psychology Today,
3, 36{39, (1970).
[14] B.E. Meyerowitz and S. Chaiken, `The eect of message fram-
ing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and be-
haviors', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
500{510, (1987).
[15] R.L. Parrott, `Motivation to attend health messages. Presen-
tation of content and linguistic considerations', in Designing
Health Messages. Approaches from Communication Theory
and Public Health Practice, eds., E. Maibach and R.L. Par-
rott, 7{23, Sage Publications, (1995).
[16] M. Pfau, `Designing messages for behavioral inoculation', in
Designing Health Messages. Approaches from Communica-
tion Theory and Public Health Practice, eds., E. Maibach and
R.L. Parrott, 99{113, Sage Publications, (1995).
[17] J.B. Sti, Persuasive Communication, Guilford Press, 1994.
[18] S. Toulmin, R. Rieke, and A. Janik, An Introduction to Rea-
soning, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.
[19] K. Witte, `The manipulative nature of health communication
research. Ethical issues and guidelines', American Behavioral
Scientist, 38 (2), 285{293, (1994).
4 D. Marcu