Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion

Tesis por compendio[ES] La argumentación computacional es el área de investigación que estudia y analiza el uso de distintas técnicas y algoritmos que aproximan el razonamiento argumentativo humano desde un punto de vista computacional. En esta tesis doctoral se estudia el uso de distintas técnicas propuestas bajo el marco de la argumentación computacional para realizar un análisis automático del discurso argumentativo, y para desarrollar técnicas de persuasión computacional basadas en argumentos. Con estos objetivos, en primer lugar se presenta una completa revisión del estado del arte y se propone una clasificación de los trabajos existentes en el área de la argumentación computacional. Esta revisión nos permite contextualizar y entender la investigación previa de forma más clara desde la perspectiva humana del razonamiento argumentativo, así como identificar las principales limitaciones y futuras tendencias de la investigación realizada en argumentación computacional. En segundo lugar, con el objetivo de solucionar algunas de estas limitaciones, se ha creado y descrito un nuevo conjunto de datos que permite abordar nuevos retos y investigar problemas previamente inabordables (e.g., evaluación automática de debates orales). Conjuntamente con estos datos, se propone un nuevo sistema para la extracción automática de argumentos y se realiza el análisis comparativo de distintas técnicas para esta misma tarea. Además, se propone un nuevo algoritmo para la evaluación automática de debates argumentativos y se prueba con debates humanos reales. Finalmente, en tercer lugar se presentan una serie de estudios y propuestas para mejorar la capacidad persuasiva de sistemas de argumentación computacionales en la interacción con usuarios humanos. De esta forma, en esta tesis se presentan avances en cada una de las partes principales del proceso de argumentación computacional (i.e., extracción automática de argumentos, representación del conocimiento y razonamiento basados en argumentos, e interacción humano-computador basada en argumentos), así como se proponen algunos de los cimientos esenciales para el análisis automático completo de discursos argumentativos en lenguaje natural.[CA] L'argumentació computacional és l'àrea de recerca que estudia i analitza l'ús de distintes tècniques i algoritmes que aproximen el raonament argumentatiu humà des d'un punt de vista computacional. En aquesta tesi doctoral s'estudia l'ús de distintes tècniques proposades sota el marc de l'argumentació computacional per a realitzar una anàlisi automàtic del discurs argumentatiu, i per a desenvolupar tècniques de persuasió computacional basades en arguments. Amb aquestos objectius, en primer lloc es presenta una completa revisió de l'estat de l'art i es proposa una classificació dels treballs existents en l'àrea de l'argumentació computacional. Aquesta revisió permet contextualitzar i entendre la investigació previa de forma més clara des de la perspectiva humana del raonament argumentatiu, així com identificar les principals limitacions i futures tendències de la investigació realitzada en argumentació computacional. En segon lloc, amb l'objectiu de sol$\cdot$lucionar algunes d'aquestes limitacions, hem creat i descrit un nou conjunt de dades que ens permet abordar nous reptes i investigar problemes prèviament inabordables (e.g., avaluació automàtica de debats orals). Conjuntament amb aquestes dades, es proposa un nou sistema per a l'extracció d'arguments i es realitza l'anàlisi comparativa de distintes tècniques per a aquesta mateixa tasca. A més a més, es proposa un nou algoritme per a l'avaluació automàtica de debats argumentatius i es prova amb debats humans reals. Finalment, en tercer lloc es presenten una sèrie d'estudis i propostes per a millorar la capacitat persuasiva de sistemes d'argumentació computacionals en la interacció amb usuaris humans. D'aquesta forma, en aquesta tesi es presenten avanços en cada una de les parts principals del procés d'argumentació computacional (i.e., l'extracció automàtica d'arguments, la representació del coneixement i raonament basats en arguments, i la interacció humà-computador basada en arguments), així com es proposen alguns dels fonaments essencials per a l'anàlisi automàtica completa de discursos argumentatius en llenguatge natural.[EN] Computational argumentation is the area of research that studies and analyses the use of different techniques and algorithms that approximate human argumentative reasoning from a computational viewpoint. In this doctoral thesis we study the use of different techniques proposed under the framework of computational argumentation to perform an automatic analysis of argumentative discourse, and to develop argument-based computational persuasion techniques. With these objectives in mind, we first present a complete review of the state of the art and propose a classification of existing works in the area of computational argumentation. This review allows us to contextualise and understand the previous research more clearly from the human perspective of argumentative reasoning, and to identify the main limitations and future trends of the research done in computational argumentation. Secondly, to overcome some of these limitations, we create and describe a new corpus that allows us to address new challenges and investigate on previously unexplored problems (e.g., automatic evaluation of spoken debates). In conjunction with this data, a new system for argument mining is proposed and a comparative analysis of different techniques for this same task is carried out. In addition, we propose a new algorithm for the automatic evaluation of argumentative debates and we evaluate it with real human debates. Thirdly, a series of studies and proposals are presented to improve the persuasiveness of computational argumentation systems in the interaction with human users. In this way, this thesis presents advances in each of the main parts of the computational argumentation process (i.e., argument mining, argument-based knowledge representation and reasoning, and argument-based human-computer interaction), and proposes some of the essential foundations for the complete automatic analysis of natural language argumentative discourses.This thesis has been partially supported by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROME- TEO/2018/002 and by the Spanish Government projects TIN2017-89156-R and PID2020- 113416RB-I00.Ruiz Dolz, R. (2023). Computational Argumentation for the Automatic Analysis of Argumentative Discourse and Human Persuasion [Tesis doctoral]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/194806Compendi

An exploration of evaluative meanings in tourist brochures : the case of British castles

Maestría en Lenguas Inglesa con orientación en Lingüística AplicadaFil: Faletti, Paula M. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina.The focus of analysis in the present study will be on how writers establish evaluative prosodies that resonate across their promotional discourse and try to accomplish reader positioning by means of their semantic choices. It seems pertinent, then, to bring into play a model of discourse analysis apposite to the study of evaluative resources. The theory drawn upon for this study is Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL), which will be delineated in the following chapter (Halliday, 1994, 2004; Martin, 2000, 2002, 2004; Martin & Rose, 2003, 2007). SFL theorises language as social semiotic, as a meaning-making system from which users choose linguistic resources when they engage in communication. It regards language as organised into different strata and performing three major metafunctions: it construes a world of experience (ideational metafunction), it establishes relationships between people (interpersonal metafunction) and it organises discourse (textual metafunction). In SFL the meaning potential of language is described in terms of interrelating sets of options organised as systems (Economou, 2009). Meaning is realised metafunctionally –as interpersonal, ideational and textual meanings– by the choices language users make out of the possibilities available in the language systems. In other words, meaning choices can be realised across different systems of lexicogrammar (Hood, 2004). EVALUATION1 , alongside INVOLVEMENT and NEGOTIATION, is one of three major resources that construe interpersonal meaning. It is located in the interpersonal dimension of language, at the level of discourse semantics – the stratum that maps meaning systems available at the level of text. Analysing Evaluation in language involves the study of the resources writers make use of when adopting a particular stance in an attempt to align the readers with the value position advanced in the text. These aspects of the interpersonal metafunction have been elaborated on by Martin (2000), Martin and Rose (2003), and Martin and White (2005) in the APPRAISAL model.Fil: Faletti, Paula M. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Lenguas; Argentina

An analysis of stance and voice in research articles across Chinese and British cultures, using the Appraisal Framework

Scholars from Mainland China are increasingly publishing in the medium of English, in order to gain visibility and credibility worldwide. However, the visibility of Chinese scholars in the Social Sciences is strikingly low. Due to the holistic, interpretative, reiterative nature of knowledge in the Social Sciences, writers have to work harder to establish personal credibility through claim-making negotiations, sharing sympathetic understanding and promoting tolerance in their readers (Becher, 1994; Becher & Trowler, 2001; Hyland, 2000). This thesis investigates differences in stance and voice style between scholars from Mainland China and Britain so as to derive new information which might be useful to novice researchers in the Social Sciences (particularly applied linguistics) who intend to publish internationally. A corpus of 30 research articles in applied linguistics was analysed in terms of Appraisal Theory (Martin & White 2005), theory of context (Xu & Nesi, 2017) and genre analysis (Swales 1990, 2004), using the UAM Corpus Tool (O’Donnell 2011). Findings from this analysis suggest that both the Chinese and the British authors are aware of the need to argue for their own opinions and maintain good relationships with their readers, but choose contrasting ways to realize these same purposes. Generally the Chinese authors try to maintain writer-reader relationships by avoiding explicit attitudinal evaluation of the work of others, while the British authors try to maintain writer-reader relationships by toning down or only evoking stance. The Chinese authors argue for their own positions by reinforcing their explicit attitudes, adding multiple references, sharpening the completion of tasks and construing claims as unquestioned, whereas the British authors argue for their own positions by explicitly evaluating people and phenomena. Because the statistically significant differences in stance and voice strategies revealed in this thesis indicate differences between Chinese and British scholars’ argumentative styles, they suggest the need for a new way of perceiving Chinese ethnolinguistic impact on research writing, and might also inform the teaching of academic writing in the social sciences

Orality in Medieval Drama: Speech-Like Features in the Middle English Comic Mystery Plays

Da die historische Sprachwissenschaft ausschließlich über geschriebene Texte als Datenbasis verfügt, wurden insbesondere im Forschungsgebiet der historischen Pragmatik bestimmte Genres identifiziert, die Aufschluss über die Sprechsprachlichkeit vergangener Sprachstufen bieten können. Dem dramatischen Genre der Komödie wird in der sprachhistorischen Forschung eine besondere Nähe zur gesprochenen Sprache zugesprochen. Das Korpus dieser Dissertation umfasst insgesamt 46 Stücke der spätmittelenglischen Mystery Plays, die biblische Episoden von der Erschaffung der Welt bis zum Jüngsten Gericht (komisch) in Szene setzen. Neben der quantitativen und qualitativen Analyse von acht nähesprachlichen Merkmalen (u. a. Anredepronomina, Fragen, Diskursmarker) beinhaltet die Arbeit eine Klassifizierung der komischen Szenen in den Mystery Plays sowie eine Untersuchung der literatur- und kulturhistorischen Kontextfaktoren, die eine Annäherung an Sprechsprachlichkeit in den Texten bedingt haben könnten.:1 Introduction 1.1 Premises and aims 1.2 Outline of the study 2 Comedy play texts as a speech-related genre 2.1 Speech-like genres and 'communicative immediacy' 2.2 Play texts vs. 'real' spoken discourse 2.3 Conclusions 3 'Comedy' in the mystery cycles 3.1 The medieval sense of 'comedy' 3.2 Medieval attitudes to laughter 3.3 Laughter and the comic in the mystery cycles 3.3.1 Humiles personae – sympathetic laughter 3.3.2 Divine triumph over evil – Schadenfreude 3.3.3 Funny games of violence – grim irony 3.4 The potential for 'communicative immediacy' in the mystery 'comedies' 3.4.1 Context and sources 3.4.2 Stylistic guidelines 3.5 Conclusions 4 Speech-like features in the mystery 'comedies' 4.1 Methodological premises 4.1.1 The data 4.1.2 Speech-like characteristics and linguistic features 4.1.3 Challenges and obstacles 4.2 Interactivity in pronominal address – (im)politeness, power and dominance 4.2.1 Second-person pronouns 4.2.1.1 Overall distribution 4.2.1.2 Family relationships 4.2.1.3 'Official' relationships 4.2.1.4 A special case: address in funny games of violence 4.2.2 Summary 4.3 Interactivity in pair structures – cooperation and conflict 4.3.1 Questions 4.3.1.1 Overall distribution 4.3.1.2 Functional analysis 4.3.1.3 Discussion of results 4.3.2 Imperatives 4.3.2.1 Overall distribution 4.3.2.2 Functional analysis 4.3.2.3 Discussion of results 4.3.3 Lexical repetition 4.3.3.1 Overall distribution 4.3.3.2 Functional Analysis 4.3.3.3 Discussion of results 4.3.4 Turn-initial discourse markers 4.3.4.1 Overall distribution 4.3.4.2 Interactional uses 4.3.4.3 Discussion of results 4.3.5 Summary 4.4 Features of sharedness and function – emotion and emphasis 4.4.1 Interjections 4.4.1.1 Overall distribution 4.4.1.2 Emotive-expressive uses 4.4.1.3 A special case: swearing 4.4.2 Vocatives: Terms of endearment and abuse 4.4.2.1 Overall distribution 4.4.2.2 Analysis 4.4.3 Demonstrative pronouns and deictic reference 4.4.3.1 Overall distribution 4.4.3.2 Analysis 4.4.4 Summary 4.5. Discussion: Speech-like features in the Middle English mystery plays 5 Final remarks 6 Bibliography 7 List of abbreviations 8 List of tables 9 List of figure

Analyzing stance in parliamentary debates: a corpus-assisted study using the APPRAISAL Framework

The current study investigates the language of stance, stance-taking and intersubjective stance in parliamentary discourse by analysing the Appraisal resources used by MPs in the UK Parliament. Focusing in particular on the attitudinal and dialogistic (ENGAGEMENT) resources used by parliamentarians in debates on the subject of flooding, the Thesis explores the role that these resources play in the construction of stance and intersubjective stance in parliamentary debates. Using Appraisal Framework of Martin and White (2005) and conducting a corpus-assisted discourse study (CADS), this study shows that the relationship between language and political stance is complex and not always straightforward due to the nature of political discourse as it unfolds in the highly specific context of parliamentary debating, which is a subgenre of political discourse that has its own rules and conventions. Further, it is argued that political stance cannot always be read directly from surface language forms in parliamentary debates. Politicians might express a public stance that is different from, if not diametrically opposed to, their real stance. They do so to achieve certain diplomatic and political ends particularly if exposing their real stance would harm their relations with their own political party affiliations. While this Thesis demonstrates that the Appraisal Framework can be a practicable framework for analysing stance in parliamentary debates, it also reveals some features of stance-taking in parliamentary instances that the Appraisal Framework fails to detect. The Thesis proposes to rectify this by introducing two new sub-categories – ACCLAIM and DENOUNCE - within the ENGAGEMENT system. Another innovative contribution of this study relates to the ATTRIBUTION sub-system of the Appraisal Framework. The current distinction between ATTRIBUTION subcategories is mainly based on its dialogistic role in text (contractiveness and expansiveness). This Thesis proposes to consider the criterion of relevance between authorial stance and attributed stance in analysing ATTRIBUTION cases. If this relevance is positive, then ATTRIBUTION is supportive, whereas if the relevance between the authorial stance and the attributed stance is negative, then ATTRIBUTION is confrontational. Applying this distinction to parliamentary debates, the Thesis finds that confrontational types of ATTRIBUTION are mostly detected in ATTRIBUTE + COUNTER sequences. Therefore, another proposal of this Thesis is to view ENGAGEMENT values as sequences, rather than self-standing units. Applying this view to the empirical data collected for this Thesis, it is established that ENGAGEMENT values do not operate separately in parliamentary debates, and consequently there is a need to analyse them as sequences to better understand their meanings and dialogistic effects in text. The analysis is also extended to include a comparative analysis between Government MPs and Opposition MPs in their use of attitudinal language and ENGAGEMENT resources. The results suggest that there is a strong correlation between the parliamentary role of MPs and the type of attitudinal and ENGAGEMENT sequences they use. It is argued that the recurrence of argumentative polarized stance among MPs is problematic in that it has the potential to damage the authenticity of parliaments as deliberative institutions. Thus, this Thesis identifies reform of the linguistic conventions of parliamentary debating as a crucial part of any attempt to reform parliamentary institutions more generally

The Vital Importance of the Imagination in the Contemporary Preaching Event

Abstract This thesis suggests that the imagination is vital in the contemporary preaching event. It enables the preacher to speak into some important themes identifiable in postmodern thought. Noting the broad range of understandings of the term ‘imagination’ in an overview of approaches in Western history, and in a wide selection of homiletic texts, a framework for mapping the imagination is offered as an heuristic device for the homiletics classroom. A theology of imagination is presented to demonstrate the importance of imagination in the life of faith and to allay fears that it may be seen to connect preaching with fiction. Allied to this is an analysis of the sacramental nature of preaching and the role of imagination in enabling such sacramental ‘seeing-as’. Connected to enabling new seeing, preaching in the lyrical voice is discussed along with the importance of preachers shaping sermons for the ear. As imagination also has a vital role in how the preacher sees the preaching task itself, exploration of various theological entailments flowing from seeing the role of preacher through the lenses of particular governing metaphors is presented. The connections between imagination, preaching, and personality are explored, along with a critique of the understanding of imagination operating in the Myers-Briggs literature and exploration of the use of imagination in the SIFT method of preaching. A number of key issues for the practice and teaching of preaching are proposed