Abstract
Clarifying characteristics of appropriate argumentative discourse is important for developing computer assisted argumentation systems. We describe the analysis of argumentative discourse structure on the basis of Rhetorical Structure Theory in order to clarify what kind of argumentative discourse structure should be considered appropriate. We think that there exist specific agreement-oriented sequences of rhetorical relations in argumentative discourse that tend to lead to an agreement. We build a small argumentative corpus annotated with rhetorical relations and calculate posteriori probability for rhetorical relations bigrams to investigate what rhetorical relations precede agreement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Carlson, L., Marcu, D., Okurowski, M.E.: Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory. In: van Kuppevelt, J., Smith, R. (eds.) Current Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 85–112. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)
Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization, Reprinted from the Structure of Discourse (1987)
Taboada, M., Mann, W.C.: Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies 8(4), 567–588 (2005)
Daradoumis, T.: Towards a Representation of the Rhetorical structure of Interrupted Exchanges. In: Trends in Natural Language Generation: An Artificial Intelligence Perspective, pp. 106–124. Springer, Berlin (1996)
Stent, A.: Rhetorical structure in dialog. In: Proceedings of First International Conference on Natural Language Generation (INLG 2000), pp. 247–252. Mitzpe Ramon, Israel (2000)
Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation (2004)
Reed, C., Grasso, F.: Recent Advances in Computational Models of Natural Argument. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int. J. Int. Syst. 22, 1–15 (2007)
Verheij, B.: Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation. Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam (2001)
Moore, J.D., Paris, C.L.: Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information. In: Computational linguistics - Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 651–694. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)
Jovanovic, N., den Akker, R.o., Nijholt, A.: A Corpus for Studying Addressing Behaviour in Multi-Party Dialogues. Springer Science + Business Media B.V, Heidelberg (2006)
Hashida, K.: Semantic Authoring and Semantic Computing. In: Sakurai, A., Hasida, K., Nitta, K. (eds.) JSAI 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3609, pp. 137–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Mochales, R., Ieven, A.: Creating an Argumentation Corpus: Do Theories Apply to Real Arguments? In: ICALL-2009, Barcelona, Spain (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zidrasco, T., Shiramatsu, S., Takasaki, J., Ozono, T., Shintani, T. (2010). Building and Analyzing Corpus to Investigate Appropriateness of Argumentative Discourse Structure for Facilitating Consensus. In: García-Pedrajas, N., Herrera, F., Fyfe, C., Benítez, J.M., Ali, M. (eds) Trends in Applied Intelligent Systems. IEA/AIE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6097. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13025-0_59
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13025-0_59
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-13024-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-13025-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)