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

Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 98-107

  Palau, Raquel Mochales ^a   Moens, Marie Francine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DAILY LIVES; HUMAN INTELLIGENCE; INTERNAL STRUCTURE; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; SCIENTIFIC REASONING; TEXT DOCUMENT;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; TEXT PROCESSING;

MINING;

EID: 70450260837     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1568234.1568246     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. J. Allen. Natural language understanding (2nd ed.). Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1995.
2. A. L. Berger, V. J. D. Pietra, and S. A. D. Pietra. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Comput. Linguist., 22(1):39-71, 1996.
3. P. Besnard and A. Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, 2008.
4. L. Birnbaum. Argument molecules: a functional representation of argument structures. In Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-82), pages 63-65, Pittsburgh, PA, August 18-20 1982.
5. E. Budanitsky and G. Hirst. Evaluating WordNet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Computational Linguistics, 32:13-47, 2006.
6. E. Charniak. A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser. Technical Report CS-99-12, 1999.
7. R. Cohen. Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 13:11-24, 1987.
8. L. Fontan and P. Saint-Dizier. Constructing a know-how repository of advices and warnings from procedural texts. In DocEng '08: Proceeding of the eighth ACM symposium on Document engineering, pages 249-252, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
9. B. Hachey and C. Grover. Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. In ICAIL '05: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 75-84, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
10. H. Horacek and M. Wolska. Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs. Data Knowl. Eng., 58(1):90-106, 2006.
11. E. H. Hovy. Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1-2):341-385, 1993.
12. A. Knott and R. Dale. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of rhetorical relations. Technical report, Discourse Processes, 1993.
13. B. Levin. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1993.
14. W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281, 1988.
15. C. D. Manning and H. Schütze. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, June 1999.
16. D. Marcu. The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: a surface-based approach. Comput. Linguist., 26(3):395-448, September 2000.
17. R. Mochales and M.-F. Moens. Study on Sentence Relations in the Automatic Detection of Argumentation in Legal Cases. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2007. IOS Press, 2007.
18. R. Mochales and M.-F. Moens. Study on the Structure of Argumentation in Case Law. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Jurix 2008. IOS Press, 2008.
19. M.-F. Moens, E. Boiy, R. Mochales, and C. Reed. Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In ICAIL '07: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 225-230, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press.
20. M. Moser and J. D. M. T. Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22:22-3, 1996.
21. T. J. Sanders. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24:119-147, 1997.
22. S. Teufel. Argumentative Zoning: Information Extraction from Scientific Text. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1999.
23. S. Teufel and M. Moens. Sentence Extraction as a Classification Task. In Workshop 'Intelligent and scalable Text summarization', ACL/EACL 1997, 1997.
24. S. E. Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, July 1958.
25. F. H. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectic approach. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
26. J. Wagner, D. Seddah, J. Foster, and J. van Genabith. C-Structures and F-Structures for the British National Corpus. In M. Butt and T. H. King, editors, The Proceedings of the LFG '07 Conference, pages 418-438, University of Stanford, California, USA, 2007.
27. D. N. Walton. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ, USA, 1996.
28. D. N. Walton. The new dialectic, Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, 1998.
29. D. N. Walton. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn State Press, 2002.
30. D. N. Walton, C. Reed, and F. Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
31. F. Wolf and E. Gibson. Coherence in Natural Language: Data Structures and Applications. MIT Press, June 2006.