Titlebook: Argumentation Mining; Manfred Stede,Jodi Schneider Book 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Predigest

trigger

Argumentative Language, of speaking or writing? The chapter thus is intended to serve primarily as background for readers who approach argumentation mining from a technical perspective and are interested in the underlying linguistic phenomena and their terminology.

姑姑在炫耀

Modeling Arguments,nents of an argument, such as the ‘standpoint’ in our definition from Section 1.1.1. Models differ in how many components they distinguish, and how they connect these components. Various names are used; we will generally refer to the . as a .. There is no single best model: Approaches to argumentati

蓋他為秘密

Corpus Annotation,rpora. Creating them has therefore been a focus of interest in the years around 2015 when the field gained momentum. In this chapter, we first describe some relatively generic annotation schemes1 that have been suggested and used for corpus annotation (Section 4.1), and then we provide brief descrip

HUMP

Finding Claims,t prominence depending on the goals of the underlying target application. For a (hypothetical) example, in order to obtain the gist of a Twitter conversation, it can be sufficient to extract claims and purported evidence material. By contrast, in order to run a deep analysis of argumentation strateg

Obliterate

Osmosis

夾死提手勢

AWL

Generating Argumentative Text,of the wider field of argumentation technology and will be increasingly relevant for many applications. However, in contrast to analysis, the generation of arguments has so far received much less attention. In the following, we discuss the topic along the lines of the two established techniques of t

潰爛