Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. Enabling a Bot with Understanding Argumentation and Providing Arguments

verfasst von : Boris Galitsky

Erschienen in: Developing Enterprise Chatbots

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We make our chatbot capable of exchanging arguments with users. The chatbot needs to tackle various argumentation patterns provided by a user as well as provide adequate argumentation patterns in response. To do that, the system needs to detect certain types of arguments in user utterances to “understand” her and detect arguments in textual content to reply back accordingly. Various patterns of logical and affective argumentation are detected by analyzing the discourse and communicative structure of user utterances and content to be delivered to the user. Unlike most argument-mining systems, the chatbot not only detects arguments but performs reasoning on them for the purpose of validation the claims. We explore how the chatbot can leverage discourse-level features to assess the quality and validity of arguments as well as overall text truthfulness, integrity, cohesiveness and how emotions and sentiments are communicated. Communicative discourse trees and their extensions for sentiments and noisy user generated content are employed in these tasks.
We conduct evaluation of argument detection on a variety of datasets with distinct argumentation patterns, from news articles to reviews and customer complaints, to observe how discourse analysis can support a chatbot operating in these domains. Our conclusion is that domain-independent discourse-level features are a critical source of information to enable the chatbot to reproduce such complex form of human activity as providing and analyzing arguments.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel A Social Promotion Chatbot
Nächstes Kapitel Rhetorical Map of an Answer
Literatur
Abbott R, Ecker B, Anand P, Walker MA (2016) Internet Argument Corp s 2.0: An SQL schema for Dialogic Social Media and the Corpora to go with it. In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Portorož, Slovenia
Ajjour Y, Chen WF, Kiesel J, Wachsmuth H, Stein B (2017) Unit segmentation of argumentative texts. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on argument mining. University of Duisburg-Essen, Copenhagen, pp 118–128CrossRef
Aker A, Sliwa A, Ma Y, Liu R, Borad N, Ziyaei SF, Ghbadi M (2017) What works and what does not: classifier and feature analysis for argument mining. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on argument mining. University of Duisburg-Essen, Copenhagen, pp 91–96CrossRef
Alsinet T, Chesñevar CI, Godo L, Simari GR (2008) A logic programming framework for possibilistic argumentation: formalization and logical properties. Fuzzy Sets Syst 159(10):1208–1228MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Amgoud L, Besnard P, Hunter A (2015) Representing and reasoning about arguments mined from texts and dialogues. In: ECSQARU, pp 60–71
Bar-Haim R, Edelstein L, Jochim C, Slonim N (2017) Improving claim stance classification with lexical knowledge expansion and context utilization. In: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on argument mining. University of Duisburg-Essen, Copenhagen, pp 32–38CrossRef
Baroni P, Giacomin M (2002) Argumentation through a distributed self-stabilizing approach. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 14(4):273–301MATHCrossRef
Barzilay R, Lapata M (2008) Modeling local coherence: an entity-based approach. Comput Linguist 34:1, 1–1,34CrossRef
BBC (2005) Suicide bomber trial: emails in full. Assessed 11–28-05 at news.bbc.​co.​uk/1/hi/uk/ 3825765.stm
Bedi P, Vashisth P (2015) Argumentation-enabled interest-based personalised recommender system. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 27(2):199–226CrossRef
Bentahar J, Moulin B, Bélanger M (2010) A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artif Intell Rev 33:211–259CrossRef
Berzlánovich I, Egg M, Redeker G (2008) Coherence structure and lexical cohesion in expository and persuasive texts. In: Benz A, Kühnlein P, Stede M (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on constraints in discourse III. University of Potsdam, Potsdam
Biran O, Rambow O (2011) Identifying justifications in written dialogs by classifying text as argumentative. Int J Semant Computing 05(04):363–381MATHCrossRef
Boguslavsky I, Iomdin L, Sizov V (2004) Multilinguality in ETAP-3: reuse of lexical resources. In: Sérasset G, Armstrong S, Boitet C, Popescu-Belis A, Tufis D (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on multilingual linguistic Ressources (MLR ‘04). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 7–14CrossRef
Bondarenko A, Dung P, Kowalski R, Toni F (1997) An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif Intell 93:63–101MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Britt MA, Larson AA (2003) Constructing representations of arguments. J Mem Lang 48(4):794–810CrossRef
Cabrio E, Villata S (2012) Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. ACL 2:208–212
Carlson L, Marcu D, Okurowski ME (2001) Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In: Proceedings of the second SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue, pp 1–10
Charolles M (1995) Cohesion, coherence et pertinence de discours. Travaux de Linguistique 29:125–151
Constantinos JS, Sarmaniotis C, Stafyla A (2003) CRM and customer-centric knowledge management: an empirical research. Bus Process Manag J 9(5):617–634CrossRef
Cristea D (1998) Formal proofs in Incremental Discourse Processing and Veins Theory, Research Report TR98 – Dept. of Computer Science. University “A.I.Cuza”, Iaşi
Damer TE (2009) Attacking faulty reas ning: a practical guide to fallacy-free reasoning. Wadsworth Cengage Learning
Das D, Chen D, Martins AFT, Schneider N, Smith NA (2014) Frame-semantic parsing. Comput Linguist 40(1):9–56CrossRef
DeVillez R (2003) Writing: step by step. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque
Eckle-Kohler, J Kluge R, Gurevych I (2015) On the role of discourse markers for discriminating claims and premises in argumentative discourse. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Egg M, Redeker G (2008) Underspecified discourse representation. In: Benz A, Kühnlein P (eds) Constraints in discourse. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 117–138CrossRef
Feng, V.W. and Hirst, G. (2011) Classifying arguments by scheme. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, pp 987–996
Feng, V.W. and Graeme Hirst (2012) Text-level discourse parsing with rich linguistic features. In Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies (ACL 2012), pp 60–68, Jeju, Korea
Feng VW, Hirst G (2014) A linear-time bottom-up discourse parser with constraints and post-editing. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, Baltimore
Ferretti E, Errecalde ML, García AJ, Simari GR (2014) A possibilistic defeasible logic programming approach to argumentation-based decision-making. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 26(4):519–550CrossRef
Florou E, Konstantopoulos S, Koukourikos A, Karampiperis P (2013) Argument extraction for supporting public policy formulation. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities. ACL, pp 49–54
Foltz PW, Kintsch W, Landauer TK (1998) The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discour Process 25:285–307CrossRef
Freeley AJ, Steinberg DL (2008) Argumentation and debate. Cengage, Wadsworth
Galitsky B (2012) Machine learning of syntactic parse trees for search and classification of text. Eng Appl AI 26(3):1072–1091CrossRef
Galitsky B (2015) Detecting rumor and disinformation by web mining, AAAI spring symposium series, pp 16–23
Galitsky B (2017) Improving relevance in a content pipeline via syntactic generalization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 58:1–26CrossRef
Galitsky B (2018) Enabling chatbots by detecting and supporting argumentation. US Patent App. 16/010,091
Galitsky B, de la Rosa JL (2011) Concept-based learning of human behavior for customer relationship management. Inf Sci 181(10):2016–2035CrossRef
Galitsky B, Kuznetsov SO (2008) Learning communicative actions of conflicting human agents. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 20(4):277–317MATHCrossRef
Galitsky B, Parnis A (2018) Accessing validity of argumentation of agents of the internet of everything. In: Lawless WF, Mittu R, Sofge D, Russell S (ed) Artificial Intelligence for the Internet of Everything (to appear)
Galitsky B and Taylor J (2018) Discovering and assessing heated arguments at the discourse level. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies: proceedings of the international conference “Dialogue 2018”. Moscow, May 30–June 2
Galitsky B, González MP, Chesñevar CI (2009) A novel approach for classifying customer complaints through graphs similarities in argumentative dialogues. Decis Support Syst 46(3):717–729CrossRef
Galitsky B, de la Rosa J-L, Kovalerchuk B (2011) Discovering common outcomes of agents’ communicative actions in various domains. Knowl -Based Syst 24(2):210–229CrossRef
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO, Strok F (2013) Matching sets of parse trees for answering multi-sentence questions // Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2013. – INCOMA Ltd., Shoumen, Bulgaria, pp 285–294
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO (2015) Text Classification into Abstract Classes Based on Discourse Structure, in: Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP 2015. pp 201–207
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO (2018) Detecting logical argumentation in text via communicative discourse tree. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 30(5):1–27CrossRef
Garcia A, Simari GR (2004) Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1–2):95–138MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Ghosh D, Muresan S, Wacholder N, Aakhus M, Mitsui M (2014) Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on argumentation mining. ACL, Baltimore, pp 39–48CrossRef
Golightly KB, Sanders G (2000) Writing and reading in the disciplines. Pearson Custom Publishing, Upper Saddle River
Goutsos D (1997) Modeling discourse topic: sequential relations and strategies in expository text. Ablex, Norwood
Grosz BJ, Sidner CL (1986) Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Comput Linguist 12(3):175–204
Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor Newsl 11(1):10–18CrossRef
Halliday MAK, Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman, London
Hogenboom A, Frasincar F, de Jong F, Kaymak U (2015a) Using rhetorical structure in sentiment analysis. Commun ACM 58:69–77CrossRef
Hogenboom A, Frasincar F, de Jong F, Kaymak U (2015b) Polarity classification using structure-based vector representations of text. Decis Support Syst 74:46–56CrossRef
Houngbo H, Mercer R (2014) An automated method to build a corpus of rhetorically-classified sentences in biomedical texts. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining. Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 26, 2014 Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 19–23
Ilvovsky, D. 2014. Going beyond sentences when applying tree kernels. Proceedings of the student research workshop. ACL pp 56–63
Iruskieta M, da Cunha I, Taboada M (2014) A qualitative comparison method for rhetorical structures: identifying different discourse structures in multilingual corpora. Lang Resour Eval 49(2):263–309CrossRef
Jørgensen AK, Hovy D, Søgaard A (2015) Proceedings of the ACL 2015 Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pp 9–18
Joty S, Moschitti A (2014) Discriminative reranking of discourse parses using tree kernels. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)
Jindal N, Liu B (2008) Opinion spam and analysis. Proceedings of International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining WSDM-2008
Joty S, Carenini G, Ng RT, Mehdad Y (2013) Combining intra-and multi- sentential rhetorical parsing for document-level dis- course analysis. ACL 1:486–496
Joty S, Carenini G, Ng RT (2015) CODRA: a novel discriminative framework for rhetorical analysis. Comput Linguist 41(3):385–435MathSciNetCrossRef
Kent I, Nicholls W (1977) The psychodynamics of terrorism. Mental Health & Society 4(1-sup-2):1–8
Kipper K, Korhonen A, Ryant N, Palmer M (2008) A large-scale classification of English verbs. Lang Resour Eval J 42:21–40CrossRef
Kirschner, C., Eckle-Kohler J, Gurevych I (2015) Linking the thoughts: analysis of argumentation structures in Scientific Publications NAACL HLT 2015 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining
Kleiber G (1994) Anaphores et pronoms. Louvain-la-Neuve, Duculot
Kong KCC (1998) Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text 18(1):103–141MathSciNetCrossRef
Kwon N, Liang Z, Hovy E, Shulman SW (2007) Identifying and classifying subjective claims. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains. Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 76–81
Lawrence J, Reed C (2015) Combining argument mining techniques, NAACL HLT 2015 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining
Lawrence J, Reed C (2017) Mining argumentative structure from natural language text using automatically generated premise-conclusion topic models. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining, pp 39–48
Lazaridou A, Titov I, Sporleder C (2013) A Bayesian model for joint unsupervised induction of sentiment, aspect and discourse representations. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1630–1639, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 4–9
Lee D (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Lang Learn Technol 5(3):37–72
Lin Z, Ng HT, Kan M-Y (2014) A PDTB-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Nat Lang Eng 20(2):151–184CrossRef
MacEwan EJ (1898) The essentials of argumentation. D. C. Heath, Boston
Makhalova T, Ilvovsky D, Galitsky B (2015) Pattern structures for news clustering. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on What can FCA do for Artificial Intelligence? –. CEUR-WS.​org, Aachen, Germany, Germany, pp 35–42
Mann W, Matthiessen C, Thompson S (1992) Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In: Mann WC, Thompson SA (eds) Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. Amsterdam, pp 39–78
Marcu D (2000) The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. MIT press, Cambridge MAMATH
Markle-Huß J, Feuerriegel S, Prendinger H (2017) Improving sentiment analysis with document-level semantic relationships from rhetoric discourse structures, 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
McNamara DS, Kintsch E, Songer NB, Kintsch W (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cogn Instr 14(1):1–43CrossRef
Mercier H, Sperber D (2011) Why do humans reason. Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav Brain Sci 34(2):57–111CrossRef
Mitocariu E, Alexandru D, Cristea D (2013) Comparing discourse tree structures. Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing: 14th International Conference, CICLing 2013, Samos, Greece, March 24–30, 2013, Proceedings, Part I
Mochales R, Moens M-F (2011, April) Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19(1):1–22CrossRef
Moens MF, Boiy E, Palau RM, Reed C (2007) Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ‘07, Stanford, CA, USA, pp 225–230
O’reilly T, McNamara DS (2007) Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Process 43(2):121–152CrossRef
Oatley K, Jenkins JM (1996) Understanding emotions. Wiley, Hoboken
Oraby S, Reed L, Compton R, Riloff E, Walker M, Whittaker S (2015) And that’s a fact: distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue. In: The 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, at The North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), Denver, Colorado
Ott M, Choi Y, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2011) Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Ott M, Cardie C, Hancock JT (2013) Negative deceptive opinion spam. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Pang B, Lee L (2004) A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Barcelona, Spain — July 21–26
Peldszus A, Stede M (2013) From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: a survey. Int J Cognit Inf Nat Intell 7(1):1–31CrossRef
Pelsmaekers K, Braecke C, Geluykens R (1998) Rhetorical relations and subordination in L2 writing. In: Sánchez-Macarro A, Carter R (eds) Linguistic choice across genres: variation in spoken and written English. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 191–213CrossRef
Pendyala VS, Figueira S (2015) Towards a truthful world wide web from a humanitarian perspective. Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE, Issue Date: 8–11 Oct. 2015
Persing I, Ng V (2015) Modeling argument strength in student essays. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL ‘15, Beijing, China, pp 543–552
Pisarevskaya D, Litvinova T, Litvinova O (2017) Deception detection for the Russian language: lexical and syntactic parameters. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval / RANLP
Prasad R, Dinesh N, Lee A, Miltsakaki E, Robaldo L, Joshi A, Webber B (2008) The Penn discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), pp 28–30
Redeker G (2000) Coherence and structure in text and discourse. In: Black W, Bunt H (eds) Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. Studies in computational pragmatics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 233–263CrossRef
Rooney N, Wang H and Browne F (2012) Applying kernel methods to argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference Applying, pp 272–275
Rouhana N, Bar-Tal D (1998) Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: the Israeli-Palestinian case. Am Psychol 53:761–770CrossRef
Sardianos C, Katakis IM, Petasis G, Karkaletsis V (2015) Argument extraction from news. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, Denver, CO, USA, pp 56–66
Scheffler T, Stede M (2016) Mapping PDTB-style connective annotation to RST-style discourse annotation. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016)
Schnedecker C (2005) Les chaînes de reference dans les portraits journalistiques: éléments de description. Travaux de Linguistique 2:85–133CrossRef
Scholman MCJ, Demberg V (2017) Examples and specifications that prove a point: identifying elaborative and argumentative discourse relations. Dialogue Discourse 8(2):56–83
Searle J (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press/Series ACM, Cambridge/New York, pp 19–33CrossRef
Severyn A, Moschitti A (2012) Fast support vector machines for convolution tree kernels. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 25.– 2012, pp 325–357
Socher R, Perelygin A, Wu J, Chuang J, Manning C, Ng A, Potts C (2013) Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2013)
Somasundaran S, Wiebe J (2009) Recognizing stances in online debates. In: Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP. Suntec, Singapore, pp 226–234
Stab C, Gurevych I (2014) Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, EMNLP ‘14. Doha, Qatar, pp 46–56CrossRef
Stab C, Gurevych I (2016) Recognizing the absence of opposing arguments in persuasive essays. ACL 2016
Stab C, Gurevych I (2017) Recognizing insufficiently supported arguments in argumentative essays
Surdeanu M, Hicks T, Valenzuela-Escarcega MA (2015) Two practical rhetorical structure theory parsers. Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies: Software Demonstrations (NAACL HLT)
Taboada M (2004) The genre structure of bulletin board messages. Text Technol 13(2):55–82
Torrance M, Bouayad-Agha N (2001) Rhetorical structure analysis as a method for understanding writing processes. In: Degand L, Bestgen Y, Spooren W, van Waes L (eds) Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse. Nodus, Amsterdam
van der Wees M, Bisazza A, Monz C (2015) Five shades of noise: analyzing machine translation errors in user- generated text. Proceedings of the ACL 2015 Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text
Van Dijk T (1977) Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Longman, London
Van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans FS (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London
Virtanen T (1995) Analysing argumentative strategies: a reply to a complaint. Angl Turkuensia 14:539–547
Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Routledge, New York
Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRef
Wang W, Su J, Tan CL (2010) Kernel based discourse relation recognition with temporal ordering information. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 710–719
Webber B, Egg M, Kordoni V (2012) Discourse structure and language technology. Nat Lang Eng 18:437–490CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Enabling a Bot with Understanding Argumentation and Providing Arguments
verfasst von
Boris Galitsky
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
Developing Enterprise Chatbots

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04298-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-04299-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04299-8_13