Representation of argumentation in text with rhetorical structure theory

Argumentation

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 181-196

  Green, Nancy L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational argumentation system; Dialectical argumentation; Enthymeme reconstruction; Presumptive argumentation schemes; Rhetorical structure theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954087842     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9169-4     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Azar, M. 1999. Argumentative text as rhetorical structure: An application of rhetorical structure theory. Argumentation 13: 97-114.
2. Baker, D. L., T. Eash, J. L. Schuette, and W. R. Uhlmann. 2002. Guidelines for writing letters to patients. Journal of Genetic Counseling 11 (5): 399-418.
3. Druzdzel, M. J., and M. Henrion. 1993. Efficient reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. In Proceedings of the 11th national conference on AI (AAAI-93), 548-553.
4. Green, N. 2005. A Bayesian network coding scheme for annotating biomedical information presented to genetic counseling clients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 38: 130-144.
5. Green, N., R. Dwight, K. Navoraphan, and B. Stadler. Natural language generation of transparent arguments for lay audiences (in preparation).
6. Kibble, R. 2006. Dialectical text planning. In CMNA06. 6th Workshop on computational models of natural argument. Riva del Garda (Italy).
7. Mann, W. C. 2005. RST web site. http://www. sfu. ca/rst/. Accessed 21 Jan 2008.
8. Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243-281.
9. Power, R., D. Scott, and N. Bouayad-Agha. 2003. Document structure. Computational Linguistics 29 (2): 211-260.
10. Reed, C., and D. Long. 1997. Content ordering in the generation of persuasive discourse. In Proceedings of 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Nagoya, Japan, 1022-1027.
11. Reed, C., and G. Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools 14 (3-4): 961-980.
12. Reed, C., D. Walton, and F. Macagno. 2007. Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 22 (1): 87-109.
13. Reiter, E., and R. Dale. 2000. Building natural language generation systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, F. Snoek Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Verheij, B. 2005. Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin's scheme. Argumentation 19: 347-371.
17. Walton, D. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
18. Walton, D., and C. A. Reed. 2005. Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145: 339-370.