- N. Wacholder, S. Muresan, D. Ghosh
- M. In: Annotating Multiparty Discourse…
An interesting practical problem for argumentation mining is the detection of argument in a specific social or cultural context. Communicative-rhetorical actions may look like argument with overt or contentious linguistic markers (e.g., ‘well’, ‘but’, ‘that’s stupid’, ‘I disagree’) but may not function as argument. Communicative-rhetorical actions may include or point to reasons but without any obvious argumentative function (e.g., explaining, clarifying). Moreover, reasoning to resolve a difference can happen implicitly among participants with only traces of the jointly owned reasoning evident in the language use. The challenge becomes how to mine in a way that excludes language that only appears to be argumentative, while including the nonobvious uses of language for argument. A response-centered approach for the context sensitive discovery and classification of argument in argumentation mining is outlined here. It is built around a conceptualization of argument as the use of language and reasoning in the context of disagreement for the purpose of managing disagreement or resolving differences of opinion (e.g., Jackson and Jacobs, 1980). The novelty of the approach is its basic upper ontology, which is designed on the idea that the argumentative use of reasons arise in the context of disagreement. The primary relation to be identified in argument mining is when a communicativerhetorical action targets a prior action and calls out and makes problematic what has (could have) been said, meant, or implied. From here lower levels of ontology can be built in a principled way that can also incorporate insights of various argument formalisms (e.g., schemes, dialogues).