Abstract
We examined whether the existence of authority claims signifies one’s rationales in online communication content, potentially contributing to the research on rationale identification and rationale generation. Authority claims are statements that reveal the writer’s intention to bolster the writer’s credibility. In open online communications, the anonymity and the dynamic participation make it challenging to establish the credibility of their viewpoints and reasoning. Therefore, we hypothesize these online participants will tend to use authority claims to bolster their credibility when presenting their justifications. We annotated authority claims in 271 text segments that contain online users’ rationales. These text segments are adapted from the open access corpora provided by Rutgers’ Argument Mining group. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that in our dataset the users scarcely attempted to bolster their credibility when presenting their reasoning to the others in these activities. We call for more investigations to explore the role of activity context affects participants’ use of authority claims in their reasoning traces. We further state that the effects of communication medium on individuals’ cognitive and meta-cognitive processes are important to consider in argument mining research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bar-Haim, R., Edelstein, L., Jochim, C., Slonim, N.: Improving claim stance classification with lexical knowledge expansion and context utilization. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, pp. 32–38 (2017)
Bender, E.M., et al.: Annotating social acts: authority claims and alignment moves in Wikipedia talk pages. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media, pp. 48–57 (2011)
Biran, O., Rambow, O.: Identifying justifications in written dialogs. In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pp. 162–168 (2011)
Boltužić, F., Šnajder, J.: Back up your stance: recognizing arguments in online discussions. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 49–58 (2014)
De Waard, A., Maat, H.P.: Epistemic modality and knowledge attribution in scientific discourse: a taxonomy of types and overview of features. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Detecting Structure in Scholarly Discourse, pp. 47–55 (2012)
Hayes, A.F., Krippendorff, K.: Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun. Methods Measures 1(1), 77–89 (2007)
Hidey, C., Musi, E., Hwang, A., Muresan, S., McKeown, K.: Analyzing the semantic types of claims and premises in an online persuasive forum. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, pp. 11–21 (2017)
Kennedy, G.A.: History of Rhetoric, Volume I: The Art of Persuasion in Greece, vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2015)
Khazaei, T., Xiao, L., Mercer, R.: Writing to persuade: analysis and detection of persuasive discourse. In: Proceedings of iConference. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/96673. Accessed 15 Sept 2018 (2017)
Khazaei, T., Xiao, L., Mercer, R.: Identification and disambiguation of lexical cues of rhetorical relations across different text genres. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Linking Computational Models of Lexical, Sentential and Discourse-Level Semantics, pp. 54–63 (2015)
Khazaei, T., Xiao, L.: Corpus-based analysis of rhetorical relations: a study of lexical cues. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing, pp. 417–423 (2015)
Koreeda, Y., Yanase, T., Yanai, K., Sato, M., Niwa, Y.: Neural attention model for classification of sentences that support promoting/suppressing relationship. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argument Mining, pp. 76–81 (2016)
Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281 (1988)
Mao, W.T., Xiao, L., Mercer, R.: The use of text similarity and sentiment analysis to examine rationales in the large-scale online deliberations. In: Proceedings of 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment & Social Media Analysis, pp. 147–153 (2014)
Park, J.S., Cardie, C.: Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), p. 29 (2014). http://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-2105.pdf
Rajendran, P., Bollegala, D., Parsons, S.: Contextual stance classification of opinions: a step towards enthymeme reconstruction in online reviews. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016), pp. 31–39 (2016)
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., Storch, N.: The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Lang. Teach. Res. 20(4), 514–534 (2016)
Schulze, J., Schultze, M., West, S.G., Krumm, S.: The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required for face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: similar or distinct constructs? J. Bus. Psychol. 32(3), 283–300 (2017)
Simons, H.W.: Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1976)
Van den Hoonaard, W.C.: Inter-and intracoder reliability. In: The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 1, pp. 445–446 (2008)
Wacholder, N., Muresan, S., Ghosh, D., Aakhus, M.: Annotating multiparty discourse: challenges for agreement metrics. In: Proceedings of LAW VIII-The 8th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pp. 120–128 (2014)
Walker, M.A., Tree, J.E.F., Anand, P., Abbott, R., King, J.: A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 21–27 May, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 812–817 (2012)
Wyner, A., Schneider, J., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Semi-automated argumentative analysis of online product reviews. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, vol. 245, pp. 43–50 (2012)
Xiao, L., Conroy, N.: Discourse relations in rationale-containing text-segments. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 68(12), 2783–2794 (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Xiao, L., Huo, X. (2019). Authority Claim in Rationale-Containing Online Comments. In: Taylor, N., Christian-Lamb, C., Martin, M., Nardi, B. (eds) Information in Contemporary Society. iConference 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11420. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_65
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_65
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15741-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15742-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)