Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Argumentation mining

  • Raquel Mochales
  • Marie-Francine Moens
Article

Abstract

Argumentation mining aims to automatically detect, classify and structure argumentation in text. Therefore, argumentation mining is an important part of a complete argumentation analyisis, i.e. understanding the content of serial arguments, their linguistic structure, the relationship between the preceding and following arguments, recognizing the underlying conceptual beliefs, and understanding within the comprehensive coherence of the specific topic. We present different methods to aid argumentation mining, starting with plain argumentation detection and moving forward to a more structural analysis of the detected argumentation. Different state-of-the-art techniques on machine learning and context free grammars are applied to solve the challenges of argumentation mining. We also highlight fundamental questions found during our research and analyse different issues for future research on argumentation mining.

Keywords

Argumentation Information extraction Text classification Document structure 

References

  1. Aleven V, Ashley KD (1997) Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley K (1990) Modeling legal argument: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley KD (1991) Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. Int J ManMach Stud 34:753–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Oskamp A, Lodder A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 21–45Google Scholar
  5. Barwise J (1977) An introduction to first-order logic. Handbook of mathematical logic, studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon TJ, Atkinson K, McBurney P (2009) Altruism and agents: an argumentation based approach to designing agent decision mechanisms. AAMAS 2(2):1073–1080Google Scholar
  7. Berger AL, Pietra VJD, Pietra SAD (1996) A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Comput Linguist 22(1):39–71Google Scholar
  8. Besnard P, Hunter A (2008) Elements of argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Branting LK (2000) Reasoning with rules and precedents: a computational model of legal analysis. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Budanitsky E, Hirst G (2006) Evaluating WordNet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Comput Linguist 32:13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charniak E (1999) A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. Technical Report CS-99-12Google Scholar
  12. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen R (1987) Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Comput Linguist 13:11–24Google Scholar
  14. Dung PM (1995) On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 77:321–357MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hachey B, Grover C (2005) Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In: ICAIL ’05: proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  16. Johnson RH, Blair JA (2002) Informal logic and the reconfiguration of logic. In: Gabbay DM, Johnson RH, Ohlbach HJ, Woods J (eds) Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: turn towards the practical. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 340–396Google Scholar
  17. Jurafsky D, Martin JH (2009) Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall (Series in Artificial Intelligence), FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirschner PA, Buckingham Shum SJ, Carr CS (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Knott A, Dale R (1993) Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of rhetorical relations. Technical report, Discourse ProcessesGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin B (1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Mann WC, Thompson SA (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3):243–281Google Scholar
  22. Manning CD, Schütze H (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Marcu D (2000) The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: a surface-based approach. Comput Linguist 26(3):395–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mochales R, Moens M-F (2007) Study on sentence relations in the automatic detection of argumentation in legal cases. In: Lodder A, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2007. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Mochales R, Moens M-F (2008) Study on the structure of argumentation in case law. In: Francesconi E, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2008. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Moens M-F, Boiy E, Mochales R, Reed C (2007) Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In: ICAIL ’07: proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  27. Negri S, von Plato J (2001) Structural proof theory. Cambridge University press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Rahwan I, Simari G (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence. X. 494 p. 100 illus., HardcoverGoogle Scholar
  29. Reed C, Rowe G (2010) ARAUCARIA: ARGUMENT DIAGRAMMING AND XML, Araucaria: software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XMLGoogle Scholar
  30. Rissland E, Skalak D (1991) CABARET: statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. Int J ManMach Stud 34:839–887Google Scholar
  31. Teufel S (1999) Argumentative zoning: information extraction from scientific text. PhD thesis, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  32. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Voss JF, Van Dyke J (2002) Argumentation in psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner J, Seddah D, Foster J, van Genabith J (2007) C-structures and F-structures for the British National Corpus. In: Butt M, King TH (eds) The proceedings of the LFG ’07 conference. University of Stanford, California, USA, pp 418–438Google Scholar
  36. Walton DN (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  37. Walton DN (1998) The new dialectic, conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigmore JH (1931) The principles of judicial proof. Little, Brown & Co, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations