Theoretical foundations for illocutionary structure parsing

Illocutionary structure in real language use is intricate and complex, and nowhere more so than in argument and debate. Identifying this structure without any theoretical scaffolding is extremely challenging even for humans. New work in Inference Anchoring Theory has provided significant advances in such scaffolding which are helping to allow the analytical challenges of argumentation structure to be tackled. This paper demonstrates how these advances can also pave the way to automated and semi-automated research in understanding the structure of natural debate. This paper is the extended version of the paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2013), 14 June 2013, Rome, Italy. It reports on the initial steps of a project on argument mining from dialogue. Note that since then the corpus size and the annotation scheme have evolved, however, the method presented here is still valid and the project has developed accordingly

Augmenting Public Deliberations through Stream Argument Analytics and Visualisations

Public deliberations are organised by governments and other large institutions to take the views of citizens around controversial issues. Increasing public demand and the associated burden on public funding make the quality of public deliberation events and their outcomes critical to modern democracies. This paper focuses on technology developed around streams of computational argument data intended to inform and improve deliberative communication in real time. Combining state-of-the-art speech recognition, argument mining, and analytics, we produce dynamic, interactive visualisations intended for non-experts, deployed incrementally in real time to deliberation participants via large screens, hand-held and personal computing devices. The goal is to bridge the gap between theoretical criteria on deliberation quality from the political sciences and objective analytics calculated automatically from computable argument data in actual public deliberations, presented as a set of visualisations which work on stream data and are simple, yet informative enough to make a positive impact on deliberative outcomes

Argumentation Theory for Mathematical Argument

To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been used to analyse mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport's structured proofs.Comment: 44 pages; to appear in Argumentatio