Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 181–196 | Cite as

Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory

  • Nancy L. GreenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Various argumentation analysis tools permit the analyst to represent functional components of an argument (e.g., data, claim, warrant, backing), how arguments are composed of subarguments and defenses against potential counterarguments, and argumentation schemes. In order to facilitate a study of argument presentation in a biomedical corpus, we have developed a hybrid scheme that enables an analyst to encode argumentation analysis within the framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), which can be used to represent the discourse structure of a text. This paper describes the hybrid representation scheme and illustrates its use for investigation of contexts that license omission of elements of an argument. The analyses given in the paper involve reconstruction of enthymemes. Defeasible argumentation schemes serve as a constraint on reconstruction. In addition, the examples illustrate several other types of contextual constraints on reconstruction of enthymemes.

Keywords

Rhetorical structure theory Presumptive argumentation schemes Dialectical argumentation Enthymeme reconstruction Computational argumentation system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under CAREER Award No. 0132821.

References

  1. Azar, M. 1999. Argumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of rhetorical structure theory. Argumentation 13: 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, D.L., T. Eash, J.L. Schuette, and W.R. Uhlmann. 2002. Guidelines for writing letters to patients. Journal of Genetic Counseling 11 (5): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Druzdzel, M.J., and M. Henrion. 1993. Efficient reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. In Proceedings of the 11th national conference on AI (AAAI-93), 548–553.Google Scholar
  4. Green, N. 2005. A Bayesian network coding scheme for annotating biomedical information presented to genetic counseling clients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 38: 130–144.Google Scholar
  5. Green, N., R. Dwight, K. Navoraphan, and B. Stadler. Natural language generation of transparent arguments for lay audiences (in preparation).Google Scholar
  6. Kibble, R. 2006. Dialectical text planning. In CMNA06. 6th Workshop on computational models of natural argument. Riva del Garda (Italy).Google Scholar
  7. Mann, W.C. 2005. RST web site. http://www.sfu.ca/rst/. Accessed 21 Jan 2008.
  8. Mann, W.C., and S.A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243–281.Google Scholar
  9. Power, R., D. Scott, and N. Bouayad-Agha. 2003. Document structure. Computational Linguistics 29 (2): 211–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reed, C., and D. Long. 1997. Content ordering in the generation of persuasive discourse. In Proceedings of 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Nagoya, Japan, 1022–1027.Google Scholar
  11. Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14 (3–4): 961–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 22 (1): 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reiter, E., and R. Dale. 2000. Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, F. Snoek Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Verheij, B. 2005. Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation 19: 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Walton, D., and C.A. Reed. 2005. Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145: 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations