Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Discourse Analysis to Argumentation Schemes and Back: Relations and Differences

  • Conference paper
Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8143))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In argumentation theory, argumentation schemes are abstract argument forms expressed in natural language, commonly used in everyday conversational argumentation. In computational linguistics, discourse analysis have been conducted to identify the discourse structure of connected text, i.e. the nature of the discourse relationships between sentences. In this paper, we propose to couple these two research lines in order to (i) use the discourse relationships to automatically detect the argumentation schemes in natural language text, and (ii) use argumentation schemes to reason over natural language arguments composed by premises and a conclusion. In particular, we analyze how argumentation schemes fit into the discourse relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank and which are the argumentation schemes which emerge from this natural language corpus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Can AI models capture natural language argumentation? Int. J. of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Apotheloz, D.: The function of negation in argumentation. J. of Pragmatics, 23–38 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bex, F., Reed, C.: Dialogue templates for automatic argument processing. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012, pp. 366–377 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Natural language arguments: A combined approach. In: Procs. of ECAI 2012. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 242, pp. 205–210 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carenini, G., Moore, J.D.: Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artif. Intell. 170(11), 925–952 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carletta, J.: Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Comput. Linguist. 22(2), 249–254 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A.: An argumentative approach to assessing natural language usage based on the web corpus. In: Procs. of ECAI 2004, pp. 581–585 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Feng, V.W., Hirst, G.: Classifying arguments by scheme. In: Procs. of ACL 2012, pp. 987–996 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert, M.: Getting good value. facts, values, and goals in computational linguistics. In: Procs. of ICCS 2010, pp. 989–998 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: ICAIL 2009, pp. 137–146. ACM (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., Jones, R.B.: Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 53(6), 1077–1115 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, vol. 3, pp. 41–58. Academic Press (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grosz, B., Sidner, C.: Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hastings, A.C.: A reformulation of the models of reasoning in argumentation. Ph.D. thesis, Evanstone, Illinois (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hobbs, J.: On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Tech. rep., Stanford University (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mann, W., Thompson, S.: Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  19. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Procs. of UAI 2000, pp. 371–379 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Parsons, S., Atkinson, K., Haigh, K.Z., Levitt, K.N., McBurney, P., Rowe, J., Singh, M.P., Sklar, E.: Argument schemes for reasoning about trust. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012, pp. 430–441 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pitler, E., Nenkova, A.: Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In: Procs. of ACL 2009 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., Webber, B.: The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In: Procs. of LREC 2008 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pulfrey-Taylor, S., Henthorn, E., Atkinson, K., Wyner, A., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Populating an online consultation tool. In: Atkinson, K. (ed.) JURIX. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 235, pp. 150–154. IOS Press (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reed, C., Grasso, F.: Recent advances in computational models of natural argument. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 1–15 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(2), 173–188 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Procs. of ICMAS 1998, pp. 246–253. IEEE Computer Society (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(4), 983–1003 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reed, C., Walton, D.: Applications of argumentation schemes. In: Procs. of OSSA 2001 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  31. The PDTB Research Group: The PDTB 2.0. Annotation Manual. Tech. Rep. IRCS-08-01, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wyner, A., van Engers, T.: A framework for enriched, controlled on-line discussion forums for e-government policy-making. In: Procs. of eGov 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wyner, A.: Questions, arguments, and natural language semantics. In: Procs. of CMNA 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wyner, A., Schneider, J., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Semi-automated argumentative analysis of online product reviews. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012, pp. 43–50 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRIA Sophia Antipolis, France

    Elena Cabrio & Serena Villata

  2. FBK Trento, Italy

    Sara Tonelli

Authors
  1. Elena Cabrio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara Tonelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serena Villata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CENTRIA and Departamento de Informática, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal

    João Leite

  2. Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, 88003, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Tran Cao Son

  3. Dipartimento di Informatica: Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), University of Bologna, V.le Risorgimento 2, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Paolo Torroni

  4. Computer Science and Communication Lab, University of Luxembourg, 6 Rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, 1359, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Leon van der Torre

  5. Institute of Information Systems, Vienna University of Technology, Favoritenstraße 9-11, 1040, Vienna, Austria

    Stefan Woltran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cabrio, E., Tonelli, S., Villata, S. (2013). From Discourse Analysis to Argumentation Schemes and Back: Relations and Differences. In: Leite, J., Son, T.C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., Woltran, S. (eds) Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems. CLIMA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40623-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40624-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation