Classifying arguments by scheme

ACL-HLT 2011 - Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Volumn 1, Issue , 2011, Pages 987-996

  Feng, Vanessa Wei ^a   Hirst, Graeme ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES; PAIRWISE CLASSIFICATION;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

EID: 84859096152     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Robin Cohen. 1987. Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Computational Linguistics, 13(1-2):11-24.
2. Judith Dick. 1987. Conceptual retrieval and case law. In Proceedings, First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 106-115, Boston, May.
3. Judith Dick. 1991a. A Conceptual, Case-relation Representation of Text for Intelligent Retrieval. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Library and Information Science, University of Toronto, April.
4. Judith Dick. 1991b. Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval. In Proceedings, Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 244-252, Oxford, June.
5. Vanessa Wei Feng. 2010. Classifying arguments by scheme. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, November. http://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Feng-MSc-2010.pdf.
6. Sarah George, Ingrid Zukerman, and Michael Niemann. 2007. Inferences, suppositions and explanatory extensions in argument interpretation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 17(5):439-474. (Pubitemid 350178305)
7. Roxana Girju. 2003. Automatic detection of causal relations for question answering. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Workshop on Multilingual Summarization and Question Answering, pages 76-83, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. Mark Hall, Eibe Frank, Geoffrey Holmes, Bernhard Pfahringer, Peter Reutemann, and Ian H. Witten. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11(1):10-18.
9. Jay J. Jiang and David W. Conrath. 1997. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In International Conference Research on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING X), pages 19-33.
10. Joel Katzav and Chris Reed. 2004. On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18(2):239-259.
11. Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens. 2008. Study on the structure of argumentation in case law. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, pages 11-20, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IOS Press.
12. Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens. 2009a. Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In ICAIL '09: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 98-107, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
13. Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens. 2009b. Automatic argumentation detection and its role in law and the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Law, Ontologies and the Semantic Web, pages 115-129, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IOS Press.
14. Marie-Francine Moens, Erik Boiy, Raquel Mochales Palau, and Chris Reed. 2007. 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. ACM. (Pubitemid 47281685)
15. John L. Pollock. 1995. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. Bradford Books. The MIT Press, May.
16. J. Ross Quinlan. 1993. C4.5: Programs for machine learning. Machine Learning, 16(3):235-240.
17. Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 14:961-980. (Pubitemid 40111952)
18. Glenn Rowe and Chris Reed. 2008. Argument diagramming: The Araucaria project. In Knowledge Cartography, pages 163-181. Springer London.
19. Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Routledge.
20. Douglas Walton and Chris Reed. 2002. Argumentation schemes and defeasible inferences. In Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 11-20, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IOS Press.
21. Douglas Walton, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.