Abstract
The argumentative structure of texts is increasingly exploited for analysis tasks, for example, for stance classification or the assessment of argumentation quality. Most existing approaches, however, model only the local structure of single arguments. This article considers the question of how to capture the global discourse-level structure of a text for argumentation-related analyses. In particular, we propose to model the global structure as a flow of “task-related rhetorical moves,” such as discourse functions or aspect-based sentiment. By comparing the flow of a text to a set of common flow patterns, we map the text into the feature space of global structures, thus capturing its discourse-level argumentation. We show how to identify different types of flow patterns, and we provide evidence that they generalize well across different domains of texts. In our evaluation for two analysis tasks, the classification of review sentiment and the scoring of essay organization, the features derived from flow patterns prove both effective and more robust than strong baselines. We conclude with a discussion of the universality of modeling flow for discourse-level argumentation analysis.
- Khalid Al-Khatib, Henning Wachsmuth, Matthias Hagen, Jonas Köhler, and Benno Stein. 2016. Cross-domain mining of argumentative text through distant supervision. In Proc. of the 15th NAACL: HLT. 1395--1404.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Philippe Besnard and Anthony Hunter. 2008. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- John Blitzer, Ryan McDonald, and Fernando Pereira. 2006. Domain adaptation with structural correspondence learning. In Proc. of the 2006 EMNLP. 120--128. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stefanie Brüninghaus and Kevin D. Ashley. 2003. Predicting outcomes of case based legal arguments. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 233--242. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2012. Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. In Proc. of the 50th ACL: Short Papers. 208--212. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sung-Hyuk Cha. 2007. Comprehensive survey on distance/similarity measures between probability density functions. Int. J. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 1, 4 (2007), 300--307.Google Scholar
- Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2 (2011), 27:1--27:27. Issue 3. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hal Daumé, III and Daniel Marcu. 2006. Domain adaptation for statistical classifiers. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 1 (2006), 101--126. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Semire Dikli. 2006. An overview of automated scoring of essays. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. 5, 1 (2006).Google Scholar
- Adam Robert Faulkner. 2014. Automated Classification of Argument Stance in Student Essays. Dissertation. City University of New York.Google Scholar
- Vanessa Wei Feng, Ziheng Lin, and Graeme Hirst. 2014. The impact of deep hierarchical discourse structures in the evaluation of text coherence. In Proc. of the 25th COLING: Technical Papers. 940--949.Google Scholar
- Vanessa Wei Feng and Graeme Hirst. 2011. Classifying arguments by scheme. In Proc. of the 49th ACL: HLT - Volume 1. 987--996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- James B. Freeman. 2011. Argument Structure: Representation and Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Shaul Markovitch. 2007. Computing semantic relatedness using wikipedia-based explicit semantic analysis. In Proc. of the 20th IJCAI. 1606--1611. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Sylviane Granger, Estelle Dagneaux, and and Magali Paquot Fanny Meunier. 2009. International Corpus of Learner English (Version 2). (2009).Google Scholar
- Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2015. Exploiting debate portals for semi-supervised argumentation mining in user-generated web discourse. In Proc. of the 2015 EMNLP. 2127--2137.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Johannes Kiesel, Khalid Al-Khatib, Matthias Hagen, and Benno Stein. 2015. A shared task on argumentation mining in newspaper editorials. In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 35--38.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8, 3 (1988), 243--281.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yi Mao and Guy Lebanon. 2007. Isotonic conditional random fields and local sentiment flow. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 19 (2007), 961--968. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rohith Menon and Yejin Choi. 2011. Domain independent authorship attribution without domain adaptation. In Proc. of the RANLP 2011. 309--315.Google Scholar
- Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens. 2011. Argumentation mining. AI Law 19, 1 (2011), 1--22. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nathan Ong, Diane Litman, and Alexandra Brusilovsky. 2014. Ontology-based argument mining and automatic essay scoring. In Proc. of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 24--28.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2005. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proc. of the 43rd ACL. 115--124. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2014. Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In Proc. of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 29--38.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2015. Joint prediction in MST-style discourse parsing for argumentation mining. In Proc. of the 2015 EMNLP. 938--948.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Isaac Persing, Alan Davis, and Vincent Ng. 2010. Modeling organization in student essays. In Proc. of the 2010 EMNLP. 229--239. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. 2015. Modeling argument strength in student essays. In Proc. of the 53rd ACL and the 7th IJCNLP. 543--552.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ruty Rinott, Lena Dankin, Carlos Alzate Perez, Mitesh M. Khapra, Ehud Aharoni, and Noam Slonim. 2015. Show me your evidence -- An automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In Proc. of the 2015 EMNLP. 440--450.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Parinaz Sobhani, Diana Inkpen, and Stan Matwin. 2015. From argumentation mining to stance classification. In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining. 67--77.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proc. of the 2013 EMNLP. 1631--1642.Google Scholar
- Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In Proc. of the 2014 EMNLP. 46--56.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- John M. Swales. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Oscar Täckström and Ryan McDonald. 2011. Discovering fine-grained sentiment with latent variable structured prediction models. In Proc. of the 33rd ECIR. 368--374. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Simone Teufel, Advaith Siddharthan, and Colin Batchelor. 2009. Towards discipline-independent argumentative zoning: Evidence from chemistry and computational linguistics. In Proc. of the 2009 EMNLP. 1493--1502. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stephen E. Toulmin. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Henning Wachsmuth. 2015. Text Analysis Pipelines—Towards Ad-hoc Large-scale Text Mining. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9383. Springer.Google Scholar
- Henning Wachsmuth, Johannes Kiesel, and Benno Stein. 2015. Sentiment flow -- A general model of web review argumentation. In Proc. of the 2015 EMNLP. 601--611.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Trenkmann, Benno Stein, and Gregor Engels. 2014a. Modeling review argumentation for robust sentiment analysis. In Proc. of the 25th COLING: Technical Papers. 553--564.Google Scholar
- Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Trenkmann, Benno Stein, Gregor Engels, and Tsvetomira Palakarska. 2014b. A review corpus for argumentation analysis. In Proc. of the 15th CICLing. 115--127. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Douglas Walton and David M. Godden. 2006. Considering Pragma-Dialectics. Erlbaum, Chapter The Impact of Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence, 287--299.Google Scholar
- Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Index Terms
A Universal Model for Discourse-Level Argumentation Analysis
Recommendations
Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces ...
A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting
This work introduces Extended Defeasible Logic Programming (E-DeLP), a structured argumentation system enabling the expression of reasons for and against using defeasible rules. E-DeLPextends the formalism of Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) by ...






Comments