[unrev-II] Discourse Tagging--Argumentation Analysis

From: Jack Park (jackpark@thinkalong.com)
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 10:23:11 PDT

  • Next message: Alex Shapiro: "Re: [unrev-II] Semantic Community Web Portal (Formality Harmful)"

    http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~delannoy/jfdxml.html
    "We discuss a proposal for an annotation system at semantic level and
    discourse level, using HTML-style tagging. Discourse is taken in the
    multiple sense of textual flow, topical structure, utterance assignment,
    and argumentative structure). We suggest ways to build these automatically
    or semi-automatically, expanding on principles used in text summarization.
    Such a representation could be used to display text in a flexible way,
    parametrized by input genre, type of output, or other parametres, to the
    effect of enhancing the efficiency of human information-retrieval and
    critiquing."

    Found by way of JF Delannoy's home page and
    http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~delannoy/aaa.html

    Automating Argumentation Analysis
    "Computational linguistics rarely considers the analysis of argumentation.
    Often, it takes discourse as a matter of textual structure or
    conversational structure, but not semantic or argumentative structure.
    Argumentation should be treated in a broad sense: more like Toulmin
    (warrants, evidence) than as Groarke (classical predicate logic, treating
    induction as a marginal case). In fact, a lot of everyday argumentation is
    based on induction from models left implicit, rather than deduction from
    clearly shared models: it is a matter of highlighting a side of the
    elephant, as the story goes (rarely more than one at a time, and rarely
    balancing or contrasting with counter-hypotheses). It is
    hypothetico-deduction on a shoestring.
    In fact, much of argumentation in non-scientific academia (social
    "sciences") is content to deliver arguments for a model and against
    another, but does not care for validation: why is a theory better than
    others, how far can it be generalized. Answering in the same terms often
    generates diluted (albeit sometimes heated) debate. There may be more
    profit in building a principled representation of the claims, and
    elaborating on this a clear critique.
    The goal of the project is to build:
    a system of representation of arguments
    a method to obtain it
    a method to critique a piece of argumentation."

    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
    Do you need to encrypt all your online transactions? Secure corporate intranets? Authenticate your Web sites? Whatever
    security your site needs, you'll find the perfect solution here!
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/wOMkGD/Q56CAA/yigFAA/IHFolB/TM
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 14:36:53 PDT