File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/99/w99-0303_metho.xml
Size: 17,762 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:15:27
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="W99-0303"> <Title>Argumentation Mark-Up: A Proposal</Title> <Section position="3" start_page="18" end_page="18" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2. Argumentation analysis </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> I focus on argumentation, which is, in a way, the articulation of discourse and content analyses.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Argumentation analysis is particularly represented in critical reading (of news, editorials, political communiques, other people's analyses on politics or economics, and legal interpretation).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> Argumentation is often not to be treated in a narrow predicate-logic framework. It is better account by Toulmin et al. 84 (using a combination of warrants and evidence to reach a conclusion) rather than, for example, Groarke et al. 97 (with classical predicate logic, and 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. One tag, <FRAMEOFREF> addresses analogical or newly created models used in a belief/construction.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> In sum, the purpose of a semi-automatic tracking and analysis of argumentation includes the following: synthesizing claims clarifying claims in association with the relevant evidence and warrants listing the actors' position on an issue (pro, contra) pinpointing terminological conflicts visualizing underlying models of the domain singling out non-demonstrative rhetorical effects - coherence checking comparing alternatives (some argument can be shown to be better than others, in absolute or for a given knowledge base) a critique of argumentative rhetorical devices, including fallacies.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="18" end_page="18" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3. The current tag set 3.1. Introduction </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The current system of tags is inspired by RST and works on reasoning like Toulmin et al. 84 or Walton 96. and from manual experiment.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The four classes of tags are: 1. Reasoning and rhetoric 2. Modelling: description of the world; actors 3. Textual and narrative</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="18" end_page="18" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4. Evaluative </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Classes 1, 2 and 4 are the most characteristic of our focus on argument; class 3 serves to accommodate text flow, inasmuch as it is pertinent to the development of an argument.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Class 4 tags are assigned by the user, or, in part, by a semantic analyzer + reasoning system if available. Remarks: <ID> and <REF> can be added to any tag to handle inter-segment reference.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> <ACTOR> is used to tag an entity, and so plays a directly semantic role, besides its interplay in the discourse analysis. Text type: political analysis. Description, evaluation, and scenario.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> 3.2. The tag set</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="18" end_page="18" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> TYPE TAG ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION |. REASONING AND RHETORIC </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> interpretation of a state of affairs, a stance, or a declaration reasoning technique tropes as commonplaces (mere) rhetorical question use of focus (e.g. importance of an element in the reasoning) varieties of polemic tone model (description of one's view of a state of affairs); its frame of reference description of the current situation background on the situation hypothesis on the future alternative recommendation an actor: a person or institution saying or doing something ref. &quot;de dicto&quot;: to another, quotable, segment ref. &quot;de re&quot;: to content of another segment source of an information or argument: a book, etc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> good (formally, or should search for evidence. For the user's own use.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> key word or key expression reader's comment</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="18" end_page="21" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4. Examples </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> 4.1, Example: &quot;Chavez rules&quot; The Economis May 1999, p 34 This except is the evaluation pan of the article, between the biography and a bibliography. Text type: political analysis. Description, evaluation, and scenario.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Original text If they ever doubted it, Venezuela's political elite now know who's boss: President Hugo Chavez. He promised during his election campaign to end their hold on power. He has now taken two giant steps toward doing so - and replacing it with his own. First, the president cowed Congress into granting him nearly all the powers that he had demanded to enact economic and financial legislation by decree. Then, on April 24th, a referendum gave him a huge majority for the creation of a new assembly to rewrite the constitution.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The former paratroop colonel, dismissesd in the early days of his challenge for power as a political neophyte, has now put the sophisticates rudely in their place. He has also shown up the weakness of the two big traditional parties. Crushed in the presidential election, they are still groping for a strategy to counter Mr Chavez and his alleged dictatorial tendencies, and who no sign so far of finding one.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Still more so \[i.e. a victory\], in its likely effects, was the backing Mr Chavez won for the creation of a new constituent assembly. The turnout, admittedly, was only 39%. But, of those who did bother to vote, over 90% backed his proposal. The country's 1961 constitution, he claims, has only perpetuated the rule of the elite in a sham democracy. The new assembly is to be elected - on non-party lines - in late June, and is meant to have a constitution ready by early January for approval by referendum later that month.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> The assembly will no doubt shake up the structures of government- not least, probably, in allowing a president the two consecutive terms that Mr Chavez seeks. Whether he can earn and win re-election it is far too early to say. But, for now, bar some seriously bad luck or bad bungling, he is firmly in the saddle, and strongly popular.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> Annotated text <SITUATION>If they ever doubted it, Venezuela's political elite now know who's boss: President <ACTOR NAME=Chavez ID= l>Hugo Chavez. </ACTOR> He promised during his election campaign to end their hold on power.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> He has now taken two giant steps toward doing so and replacing it with his own.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> <DETAILS>First, the president cowed Congress into granting him nearly all the powers that he had demanded to enact economic and financial legislation by decree. <LATER_EVENT> Then, on April 24th, a <KW>referendum</KW> gave him a huge majority for the creation of a new assembly to rewrite the constitution.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> has now put the sophisticates rudely in their place.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> He has also shown up the weakness of the <ACTOR ID 1> two big traditional parties.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> <CAUSE> Crushed in the presidential election, </CAUSE> <REF = &quot;the two big traditional parties&quot;> they are still groping for a strategy to counter Mr Chavez and his alleged dictatorial tendencies, and who show no sign so far of finding one.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> <INTERP> Still more so \[i.e. a victory\], in its likely effects, was the backing Mr Chavez won for the creation of a new constituent assembly.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> <EVID> <CONCESSION> The turnout, admittedly, was only 39%. </CONCESSION> <But, of those who did bother to vote, over 90% backed his proposal.</EVID> <DECLA BY=Chavez>The country's 1961 constitution, he claims, has only perpetuated the rule oft he elite in a sham democracy. </DECLA> <SCENARIO> The new assembly is to be elected - on non-party lines - in late June, and is meant to have a constitution ready by early January for approval by referendum later that month.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> </SCENARIO></Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="8" start_page="21" end_page="23" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> < SCENARIO > </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The assembly will no doubt shake up the structures of governmentnot least, probably, in allowing a president the two consecutive terms that Mr Chavez seeks. Whether he can earn and win re-election it is far too early to say.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> </SCENARIO> <SITUATION>Bug for now, <CONDITION MOD =unlikely>bar some seriously bad luck or bad bungling </CONDITION>, he is firmly in the saddle, and strongly popular. </SITUATION> 4.2. Example 2: Encyclopaedia Britannica on Herbert Marcuse Text type: encyclopedic (with ironic distance) Original text A Hegelian-Freudian-Marxist, Marcuse was wedded to the ideas of radicalization, vociferous dissent, and &quot;resistance to the point of subversion.&quot; He believed that Western society was unfree and repressive, that its technology had bought the complacency of the masses with material goods, and that it had kept them intellectually and spiritually captive. However, although a frank exponent of resistance to the established order, Marcuse did not applaud the campus demonstrations. &quot;I still consider the American University an oasis of free speech and real critical thinking in the society,&quot; he said. &quot;Any student movement should try to protect this citadel... \[but\] try to radicalize the departments inside the university.&quot; Annotated text A <POL tone=irony> Hegelian-Freudian-Marxist</POL>, <ACTOR NAME=Marcuse>Marcuse was </ACTOR> <POL tone=irony>wedded to the ideas </POL> of radicalization, <POL TONE =irony>vociferous</POL> dissent, and <QUO type=Excerpt> author=Marcuse> &quot;resistance to the point of subversion.&quot;</QUO> He <POL TONE =irony>believed</POL> that Western society was unfree and repressive, that its technology had bought the <POL TONE=irony>complacency</POL> of the masses with material goods, and that it had kept them intellectually and spiritually captive.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> <CONTRAST>However, <CONCESSION> although a frank exponent of resistance to the established order </CONCESSION>, Marcuse did not applaud the campus demonstrations.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> <EVIDENCE> <QUOTE BY=Marcuse>&quot;I still consider the American University an oasis of free speech and real critical thinking in the society,&quot; he said.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> <RECOM>&quot;Any student movement should try to protect this citadel \[but\] try to radicalize the departments inside</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="22" end_page="23" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 5.1. Method </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The annotator is to be associated to a summarizer (Delannoy et al. 1998). The summarizer is a nonknowledge-based selector of passages which combines indices of different aspects: keywords assigned dynamically, position, word distribution, coherence via lexical chains (using WordNet or Roget: Barker et al. 98a) and markers, and thesaurus relations. The initial granularity is that of sentences, although we are trying to refine it with a grammar. In the compilation of the final summary, sentences are selected one by one, with a bias to sentences containing keywords underrepresented so far. As a partly implemented feature, the input is classified in one of various text types (neutral, news story, political analysis, narrative, etc.), and the user selects one of several output types (events, changes, utterances without treatment, or details of argumentation) The processing for argumentation mark-up (in progress) uses a chart parser for segmenting, rather than the shallow segmenting in Marcu 97. It targets more than &quot;clause-like&quot; units: non-clause circumstantials (adverbials or adjectivals) are recognized and kept separate. This is to allows for summarization by elimination of minor constituents (&quot;text reduction&quot;: Greffenstette 98), and also for the treatment of eircumstantials in narrow/broad scope as required ( as in: &quot;villagers, who holds guns, will be considered outlaws&quot; vs. &quot;villagers who hold guns will be considered outlaws&quot;). Non-binary branching (3 and more) is allowed, as are cross-level relations, e.g. between a clause and a whole paragraph, in particular for cases of propositional reference (&quot;Those points will be discussed etc.&quot;), or meta-textual reference (&quot;the concept outlined in the previous paragraph is now applied to etc.&quot;), that is, de dicto as opposed to de re.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> The set of cues is inspired by the extensive list in Marcu 97. There are rules of scoping for the cues into relations and their scope over text segments. The construction of the tree of rhetorical relations is done by applying rules.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> The user can intervene in the process to rectify a decision of the system, or to insert free-style comments or links.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="23" end_page="23" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 5.2. Output </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The output can be: * the input text, enriched with marked up of argumentative structure in the discourse XML (if desired, highlighted via a browser) * a graph of the argumentation components (e.g. for a critical thinking class) * a point-form summary of claims made by the author and, if applicable, of the actors reported on * a highlight of fallacies: bad arguments (with flaws of evidence, relevance, cohesion, etc.) * answers to standard questions in general or on the type of text, as: timeline, list of persons and charges mentioned, declarations, predictions, etc.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> * a chart of the positions of various actors pro and contra the main points at issue - and of their oppositions (e.g. on an article of political analys!s). At the time of writing, this is not operational. As intended, the selection of the output type is done by an HTML interface lauching a CGI which parses the XML and translates it to HTML, selectively to reflect the choice of viewing made by the user.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> 6. Discussion 6.1. Suitability and scope - In our manual experiments, XML-style annotation appears to cover all argument structures, in terms of adequacy and non-ambiguity. Still, the criteria of multiple-user satisfaction, and of the fulfilment of a further task, should be examined in the future. - the XML representation framework is versatile in matters of extensibility, scoping, and embedding; still, one will have to test it for possible overlap problems - the annotation scheme is inherently multilingual; the annotation process requires language-specific lexical and syntactic resources - the mark-up addresses argumentative texts: those reporting collaborative or contradictory discussants -(in direct speech, indirect speech, or synthetic rephrasing), those where the author gives claims and rationales, and those texts meeting both criteria. More finely, it may be useful to characterize different subtypes of texts: a reader does not look for the same information in different types of texts; and not with the same cues. This has not been considered as yet. 6.2. Assumptions, risks, limitations There is a risk of running into problems of overlap: To address this, we have to : - use the tag classification - handle specific priorities where applicable - for the rest, use one the existing means for handling overlap, e.g. as proposed for the Bergen Wittgenstein Archive (Sperberg-McQueen & Huitfeldt 98), or by the scoping methods of GDA.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> 7. Background and Advancement We had the idea of HTML-style mark-up of discourse in early 1998, before we were even acquainted with XML. The original purpose was mostly one of highlighting, for applying critical-thinking analyses in a standardizable way. Experiments have been done manually by the author on 42 texts, 10 to 600 words long, consisting of news articles (Le Monde, CNN Online), encyclopedia entries (E. Britannica online) and on texts containing more in-depth analyses (The Economist; editorials in Le Monde; articles of Le Monde Diplomatique and the New York Review Of Books).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> The analyzer is being prototyped in Perl to be associated to the aummarizer in (Delannoy et al. 98). It includes an operational parser of XML, and a chart-parser of English, in progress.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> The system of tags can probably be improved by more manual mark-up and evaluation. The DTD is not yet mature; it should be refined and validated on a large number of texts, and preferably in a collaborative way..</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>