On Recognizing Argumentation Schemes in Formal Text Genres

Argumentation mining research should address the challenge of recognition of argumentation schemes in formal text genres such as scientific articles. This paper argues that identification of argumentation schemes differs from identification of other aspects of discourse such as argumentative zones and coherence relations. Argumentation schemes can be defined at a level of abstraction applicable across the natural sciences. There are useful applications of automatic argumentation scheme recognition. However, it is likely that inference-based techniques will be required.(Note: Due to a publishing error, only the abstract of the paper appeared in the published Seminar Report at http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.6.4.80

Argument mining: A machine learning perspective

Argument mining has recently become a hot topic, attracting the interests of several and diverse research communities, ranging from artificial intelligence, to computational linguistics, natural language processing, social and philosophical sciences. In this paper, we attempt to describe the problems and challenges of argument mining from a machine learning angle. In particular, we advocate that machine learning techniques so far have been under-exploited, and that a more proper standardization of the problem, also with regards to the underlying argument model, could provide a crucial element to develop better systems

A literature review. Introduction to the special issue

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER-FIL/28278/2017 CHIST-ERA/0002/2019Argumentation schemes [35, 80, 91] are a relatively recent notion that continues an extremely ancient debate on one of the foundations of human reasoning, human comprehension, and obviously human argumentation, i.e., the topics. To understand the revolutionary nature of Walton’s work on this subject matter, it is necessary to place it in the debate that it continues and contributes to, namely a view of logic that is much broader than the formalistic perspective that has been adopted from the 20th century until nowadays. With his book Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, Walton attempted to start a dialogue between three different fields or views on human reasoning – one (argumentation theory) very recent, one (dialectics) very ancient and with a very long tradition, and one (formal logic) relatively recent, but dominating in philosophy. Argumentation schemes were proposed as dialectical instruments, in the sense that they represented arguments not only as formal relations, but also as pragmatic inferences, as they at the same time depend on what the interlocutors share and accept in a given dialogical circumstance, and affect their dialogical relation. In this introduction, the notion of argumentation scheme will be analyzed in detail, showing its different dimensions and its defining features which make them an extremely useful instrument in Artificial Intelligence. This theoretical background will be followed by a literature review on the uses of the schemes in computing, aimed at identifying the most important areas and trends, the most promising proposals, and the directions of future research.publishersversionpublishe

Procedurally Rhetorical Verb-Centric Frame Semantics as a Knowledge Representation for Argumentation Analysis of Biochemistry Articles

The central focus of this thesis is rhetorical moves in biochemistry articles. Kanoksilapatham has provided a descriptive theory of rhetorical moves that extends Swales' CARS model to the complete biochemistry article. The thesis begins the construction of a computational model of this descriptive theory. Attention is placed on the Methods section of the articles. We hypothesize that because authors' argumentation closely follows their experimental procedure, procedural verbs may be the guide to understanding the rhetorical moves. Our work proposes an extension to the normal (i.e., VerbNet) semantic roles especially tuned to this domain. A major contribution is a corpus of Method sections that have been marked up for rhetorical moves and semantic roles. The writing style of this genre tends to occasionally omit semantic roles, so another important contribution is a prototype ontology that provides experimental procedure knowledge for the biochemistry domain. Our computational model employs machine learning to build its models for the semantic roles and rhetorical moves, validated against a gold standard reflecting the annotation of these texts by human experts. We provide significant insights into how to derive these annotations, and as such have contributions as well to the general challenge of producing markups in the domain of biomedical science documents, where specialized knowledge is required

An argument-annotated corpus of scientific publications

Argumentation is an essential feature of scientific language. We present an annotation study resulting in a corpus of scientific publications annotated with argumentative components and relations. The argumentative annotations have been added to the existing Dr. Inventor Corpus, already annotated for four other rhetorical aspects. We analyze the annotated argumentative structures and investigate the relations between argumentation and other rhetorical aspects of scientific writing, such as discourse roles and citation contexts