Abstract Effective communication in open environments relies on the ability of agents to reach a mutual understanding of the exchanged message by reconciling the vocabulary (ontology) used. Various approaches have considered how mutually acceptable mappings between corresponding concepts in the agents’ own ontologies may be determined dynamically through argumentation-based negotiation (such as Meaning-based Argumentation). However, the complexity of this process is high, approaching Π(p) 2 -complete in some cases. As reducing this complexity is non-trivial, we propose the use of ontology modularization as a means of reducing the space over which possible concepts are negotiated. The suitability of different modularization approaches as fifiltering mechanisms for reducing the negotiation search space is investigated, and a framework that integrates modularization with Meaning-based Argumentation is proposed. We empirically demonstrate that some modularization approaches not only reduce the number of alignments required to reach consensus, but also predict those cases where a service provider is unable to satisfy a request, without the need for negotiation