17,106 research outputs found
Presupposed evaluation in environmental argumentative discourse
Expressions of evaluation in discourse have been studied from a number of different perspectives, all highlighting the fact that evaluation may be expressed cumulatively, through a combination of different linguistic means, and pragmatically, at various levels of implicitness, which often defy precise categorization. This paper argues that, in argumentative discourse, the pragmatics of evaluation includes not only implied but also presupposed aspects. A case study centred on the environmental debate over the contested practice of fracking is used to identify the evaluative premises that lie behind the main stances or claims on the issue, as expressed by different stakeholders. It is argued that this wider approach to the analysis of evaluation may be particularly suited to uncover the evaluative premises that lie at the core of different and often contradictory environmental positions and policies
Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays
In this article, we present a novel approach for parsing argumentation
structures. We identify argument components using sequence labeling at the
token level and apply a new joint model for detecting argumentation structures.
The proposed model globally optimizes argument component types and
argumentative relations using integer linear programming. We show that our
model considerably improves the performance of base classifiers and
significantly outperforms challenging heuristic baselines. Moreover, we
introduce a novel corpus of persuasive essays annotated with argumentation
structures. We show that our annotation scheme and annotation guidelines
successfully guide human annotators to substantial agreement. This corpus and
the annotation guidelines are freely available for ensuring reproducibility and
to encourage future research in computational argumentation.Comment: Under review in Computational Linguistics. First submission: 26
October 2015. Revised submission: 15 July 201
Persuasive argumentation as a cultural practice
In this article author traces relation between argumentation and cultural practice. The first part focuses on definition of argumentation in informal logic tradition. In particular, it discusses argument in terms of verbal and social activity involving the use of everyday language. Author claims that there is no argumentation beyond language. The second part explains persuasive argumentation as a form of cultural practice. The persuasive arguments found in “social practice” can be understood as a social activity, analysable within the context of a given cultural system. Author refers to an approach taking the argumentative expression as a certain type of communicative practice, directed towards respecting, recognising or accepting specific actions. The inclusion of persuasive argumentation in the “circuit of cultural activities” to be studied makes it possible to compare this type of argumentation with other social practices, and to posit a clear historical dimension in the study of argumentation. It also makes it possible to view persuasive argumentation as one of many cultural activities aimed at changing or perpetuating behaviours, attitudes, thinking, etc. The third part of the paper concerns the problem of humanistic interpretation of persuasive argumentation. Author attempts to develop this intuition, at the same time demonstrating the problems that arise from this approach. In conclusion, author tries to analyze argumentation in terms of culture theory and humanistic interpretation
Assessing relevance
This paper advances an approach to relevance grounded on patterns of material inference called argumentation schemes, which can account for the reconstruction and the evaluation of relevance relations. In order to account for relevance in different types of dialogical contexts, pursuing also non-cognitive goals, and measuring the scalar strength of relevance, communicative acts are conceived as dialogue moves, whose coherence with the previous ones or the context is represented as the conclusion of steps of material inferences. Such inferences are described using argumentation schemes and are evaluated by considering 1) their defeasibility, and 2) the acceptability of the implicit premises on which they are based. The assessment of both the relevance of an utterance and the strength thereof depends on the evaluation of three interrelated factors: 1) number of inferential steps required; 2) the types of argumentation schemes involved; and 3) the implicit premises required
Cross-lingual Argumentation Mining: Machine Translation (and a bit of Projection) is All You Need!
Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse
structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this
work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for
assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity.
We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine)
translating a popular AM dataset consisting of persuasive student essays into
German, French, Spanish, and Chinese. We then compare (i) annotation projection
and (ii) bilingual word embeddings based direct transfer strategies for
cross-lingual AM, finding that the former performs considerably better and
almost eliminates the loss from cross-lingual transfer. Moreover, we find that
annotation projection works equally well when using either costly human or
cheap machine translations. Our code and data are available at
\url{http://github.com/UKPLab/coling2018-xling_argument_mining}.Comment: Accepted at Coling 201
- …