Graduate studies at Western
Argument and Computation 3 (1):49 - 82 (2012)
|Abstract||In this article, we first present the platform and the Dislog language, designed for discourse analysis with a logic and linguistic perspective. The platform has now reached a certain level of maturity which allows the recognition of a large diversity of discourse structures including general-purpose rhetorical structures as well as domain-specific discourse structures. The Dislog language is based on linguistic considerations and includes knowledge access and inference capabilities. Functionalities of the language are presented together with a method for writing discourse analysis rules. Efficiency and portability of the system over domains and languages are investigated to conclude this first part. In a second part, we analyse the different types of arguments found in several document genres, most notably: procedures, didactic texts and requirements. Arguments form a large class of discourse relations. A generic and frequently encountered form emerges from our analysis: ?reasons for conclusion? which constitutes a homogeneous family of arguments from a language, functional and conceptual point of view. This family can be viewed as a kind of proto-argument. We then elaborate its linguistic structure and show how it is implemented in . We then investigate the cooperation between explanation and arguments, in particular in didactic texts where they are particularly rich and elaborated. This article ends with a prospective section that develops current and potential uses of this work and how it can be extended to the recognition of other forms of arguments|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Catherine Lai & Steven Bird (2010). Querying Linguistic Trees. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (1):53-73.
Anne S. Hsu & Nick Chater (2010). The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition: A Probabilistic Perspective. Cognitive Science 34 (6):972-1016.
Rush Rhees (1998). Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
D. Walton & C. A. Reed (2005). Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese 145 (3):339 - 370.
George Lakoff (1970). Linguistics and Natural Logic. Synthese 22 (1-2):151 - 271.
William J. Rapaport (1988). Syntactic Semantics: Foundations of Computational Natural Language Understanding. In James H. Fetzer (ed.), Aspects of AI. Kluwer.
Nick Chater (2002). Is LF Really a Linguistic Level? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):680-680.
Martha Stone Palmer (2006). Semantic Processing for Finite Domains. Cambridge University Press.
Syed S. Ali & Stuart C. Shapiro (1993). Natural Language Processing Using a Propositional Semantic Network with Structured Variables. Minds and Machines 3 (4):421-451.
Jose M. Saguillo (1999). Domains of Sciences, Universes of Discourse and Omega Arguments. History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):267-290.
Sebastian Lutz (2009). Ideal Language Philosophy and Experiments on Intuitions. Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (2):117-139.
Christopher Gauker (2007). On the Alleged Priority of Thought Over Language. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), John Searle's Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning, and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
David J. Cole (1999). I Don't Think So: Pinker on the Mentalese Monopoly. Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):283-295.
Added to index2012-03-14
Total downloads8 ( #131,909 of 739,830 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,830 )
How can I increase my downloads?