Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text

Argumentation is the process by which arguments are constructed and handled. Argumentation constitutes a major component of human intelligence. The ability to engage in argumentation is essential for humans to understand new problems, to perform scientific reasoning, to express, to clarify and to defend their opinions in their daily lives. Argumentation mining aims to detect the arguments presented in a text document, the relations between them and the internal structure of each individual argument. In this paper we analyse the main research questions when dealing with argumentation mining and the different methods we have studied and developed in order to successfully confront the challenges of argumentation mining in legal texts.

[1]  Lawrence Birnbaum,et al.  Argument Molecules: A Functional Representation of Argument Structure , 1982, AAAI.

[2]  Robin Cohen,et al.  Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse , 1987, CL.

[3]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[4]  Beth Levin,et al.  English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation , 1993 .

[5]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[6]  James F. Allen.  Natural language understanding (2nd ed.) , 1995 .

[7]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[8]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Toward a Synthesis of Two Accounts of Discourse Structure , 1996, Comput. Linguistics.

[9]  Adam L. Berger,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Approach to Natural Language Processing , 1996, CL.

[10]  Simone Teufel,et al.  Sentence extraction as a classification task , 1997 .

[11]  T. Sanders.  Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context , 1997 .

[12]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument , 1998 .

[13]  Simone Teufel,et al.  Argumentative zoning information extraction from scientific text , 1999 .

[14]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: a surface-based approach , 2000, CL.

[15]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser , 2000, ANLP.

[16]  Hinrich Schütze,et al.  Book Reviews: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , 1999, CL.

[17]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Legal argumentation and evidence , 2002 .

[18]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[19]  Claire Grover,et al.  Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[20]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness , 2006, CL.

[21]  Magdalena Wolska,et al.  Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs , 2006, Data Knowl. Eng..

[22]  Florian Wolf,et al.  Coherence in Natural Language: Data Structures and Applications , 2006 .

[23]  Anthony Hunter,et al.  Elements of Argumentation , 2007, ECSQARU.

[24]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Study on Sentence Relations in the Automatic Detection of Argumentation in Legal Cases , 2007, JURIX.

[25]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts , 2007, ICAIL.

[26]  Josef van Genabith,et al.  C-Structures and F-Structures for the British National Corpus , 2007 .

[27]  Robert Dale,et al.  Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Rhetorical Relations , 2007 .

[28]  Patrick Saint-Dizier,et al.  Constructing a know-how repository of advices and warnings from procedural texts , 2008, DocEng '08.

[29]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[30]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Study on the Structure of Argumentation in Case Law , 2008, JURIX.

[31]  Anna Maria Di Sciullo,et al.  Natural Language Understanding , 2009, SoMeT.