Abstract
This paper describes a computational model for analyzing arguments in discourse. In particular, the model describes processes necessary for interpreting one uninterrupted argument from a speaker. The resulting output is a representation for the underlying claim and evidence relations between propositions of the argument. For our processing model we present: (i) a characterization of coherent orderings of propositions, used to limit search for interpretation of each new proposition (ii) a working definition of the evidence relation, used to recognize connections between propositions (iii) a theory of the function and use of clue words — special words and phrases indicating the structure of the argument — then used in the analysis to control search for interpretation and verification of evidence relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvarado, S., M. Dyer and M. Flowers: 1986, ‘Editorial comprehension in OpEd through argument units’, proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 86), pp. 250–256.
Archbold, A. and J. Hobbs: 1980, ‘Notes on “the analysis of evaluative argumentation in text”: a report on on-going work’, SRI unpublished draft.
Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1982, ‘Generalized quantifiers and natural language’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4.
Birnbaum, L., M. Flowers and R. McGuire: 1980, ‘Towards an AI model of argumentation’, proceedings of the First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 80), pp. 313–315.
Cohen, R.: 1981, ‘Investigation of processing strategies for the structural analysis of arguments’, proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) Conference 1981, pp. 71–75.
Cohen, R.: 1983, ‘A computational model for the analysis of arguments’, University of Toronto Computer Systems Research Group Technical Report No. 151, Ph.D. thesis.
Cohen, R.: 1985, ‘The need for pragmatics in natural language understanding’, proceedings of CSCSI-sponsored Theoretical Advances in Natural Language Understanding Conference.
Cohen, R.: 1986, ‘Incorporating pragmatics into a natural language understanding system for analyzing arguments’, submitted to Computational Intelligence, April 1986.
Fahnestock, J. and M. Secor: 1982, A Rhetoric of Argument, Random House, New York.
Grosz, B. and C. Sidner: 1985, ‘The structures of discourse structure’, Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) Report No. 6097, Cambridge, Mass. (also CSLI Report No. CSLI-8539).
Levesque, H.: 1984, ‘A logic of implicit and explicit belief’, proceedings of Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 84), pp. 198–202.
Litman, D.: 1985, ‘Plan recognition and discourse analysis: An integrated approach for understanding dialogues’, University of Rochester Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR170.
Quirk, R. et al.: 1972, A Grammar for Contemporary English, Longmans Co., London.
Reichman, R.: 1981, ‘Plain speaking: A theory and grammar of spotaneous discourse’, Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) Report No. 4681.
Sadock, J.: 1977, ‘Modus brevis: The truncated argument’, papers from the 13th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, R. A processing model for the analysis of one-way arguments in discourse. Argumentation 4, 431–446 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184769
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184769