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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Can AI models capture natural language argumentation? Int. J. of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (2013)
Apotheloz, D.: The function of negation in argumentation. J. of Pragmatics, 23–38 (1993)
Bex, F., Reed, C.: Dialogue templates for automatic argument processing. In: Procs. of COMMA 2012, pp. 366–377 (2012)
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)
Carenini, G., Moore, J.D.: Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artif. Intell. 170(11), 925–952 (2006)
Carletta, J.: Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Comput. Linguist. 22(2), 249–254 (1996)
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)
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)
Feng, V.W., Hirst, G.: Classifying arguments by scheme. In: Procs. of ACL 2012, pp. 987–996 (2011)
Gilbert, M.: Getting good value. facts, values, and goals in computational linguistics. In: Procs. of ICCS 2010, pp. 989–998 (2001)
Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)
Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: ICAIL 2009, pp. 137–146. ACM (2009)
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)
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)
Grosz, B., Sidner, C.: Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics (1986)
Hastings, A.C.: A reformulation of the models of reasoning in argumentation. Ph.D. thesis, Evanstone, Illinois (1963)
Hobbs, J.: On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Tech. rep., Stanford University (1985)
Mann, W., Thompson, S.: Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3), 243–281 (1988)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Procs. of UAI 2000, pp. 371–379 (2000)
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)
Pitler, E., Nenkova, A.: Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connectives in text. In: Procs. of ACL 2009 (2009)
Prakken, H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1, 93–124 (2010)
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)
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)
Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)
Reed, C., Grasso, F.: Recent advances in computational models of natural argument. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 1–15 (2007)
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)
Reed, C.: Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Procs. of ICMAS 1998, pp. 246–253. IEEE Computer Society (1998)
Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(4), 983–1003 (2004)
Reed, C., Walton, D.: Applications of argumentation schemes. In: Procs. of OSSA 2001 (2001)
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)
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (1958)
Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F.: Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press (2008)
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)
Wyner, A.: Questions, arguments, and natural language semantics. In: Procs. of CMNA 2012 (2012)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)