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

ABSTRACT

Argumentation is the process by which arguments are constructed and handled. Argumentation constitutes a major component of human intelligence. The ability to engage in argumentation is essential for humans to understand new problems, to perform scientific reasoning, to express, to clarify and to defend their opinions in their daily lives. Argumentation mining aims to detect the arguments presented in a text document, the relations between them and the internal structure of each individual argument. In this paper we analyse the main research questions when dealing with argumentation mining and the different methods we have studied and developed in order to successfully confront the challenges of argumentation mining in legal texts.

REFERENCES

• 1: James Allen, Natural language understanding (2nd ed.), Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, 1995
• 2: Adam L. Berger , Vincent J. Della Pietra , Stephen A. Della Pietra, A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing, Computational Linguistics, v.22 n.1, p.39-71, March 1996
• 3: Philippe Besnard , Anthony 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: Alexander Budanitsky , Graeme Hirst, Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Lexical Semantic Relatedness, Computational Linguistics, v.32 n.1, p.13-47, March 2006 [doi>10.1162/coli.2006.32.1.13]
• 6: Eugene Charniak, A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser, Brown University, Providence, RI, 1999
• 7: Robin Cohen, Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse, Computational Linguistics, v.13 n.1-2, p.11-24, January-June 1987
• 8: Lionel Fontan , Patrick Saint-Dizier, Constructing a know-how repository of advices and warnings from procedural texts, Proceeding of the eighth ACM symposium on Document engineering, September 16-19, 2008, Sao Paulo, Brazil [doi>10.1145/1410140.1410192]
• 9: Ben Hachey , Claire Grover, Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 06-11, 2005, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/1165485.1165498]
• 10: Helmut Horacek , Magdalena Wolska, Interpreting semi-formal utterances in dialogs about mathematical proofs, Data & Knowledge Engineering, v.58 n.1, p.90-106, July 2006 [doi>10.1016/j.datak.2005.05.010]
• 11: Eduard H. Hovy, Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations, Artificial Intelligence, v.63 n.1-2, p.341-385, Oct. 1993 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(93)90021-3]
• 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: Christopher D. Manning , Hinrich Schütze, Foundations of statistical natural language processing, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• 16: Daniel Marcu, The rhetorical parsing of unrestricted texts: a surface-based approach, Computational Linguistics, v.26 n.3, p.395-448, September 2000 [doi>10.1162/089120100561755]
• 17: Raquel Mochales-Palau , Marie-Francine Moens, Study on Sentence Relations in the Automatic Detection of Argumentation in Legal Cases, Proceeding of the 2007 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2007: The Twentieth Annual Conference, p.89-98, June 15, 2007
• 18: Raquel Mochales , Marie-Francine Moens, Study on the Structure of Argumentation in Case Law, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, p.11-20, July 08, 2008
• 19: Marie-Francine Moens , Erik Boiy , Raquel Mochales Palau , Chris Reed, Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 04-08, 2007, Stanford, California [doi>10.1145/1276318.1276362]
• 20: Megan Moser , Johanna D. Moore, Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure, Computational Linguistics, v.22 n.3, September 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.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.1 Applications and Expert Systems
          Subjects: Law

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
      H.2.8 Database applications
          Subjects: Data mining

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.5 PATTERN RECOGNITION
      I.5.4 Applications
          Subjects: Text processing

  J. Computer Applications
  J.1 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA PROCESSING
      Subjects: Law

General Terms:
Algorithms, Legal Aspects