@inproceedings{hidey-etal-2017-analyzing,
title = "Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum",
author = "Hidey, Christopher and
Musi, Elena and
Hwang, Alyssa and
Muresan, Smaranda and
McKeown, Kathy",
editor = "Habernal, Ivan and
Gurevych, Iryna and
Ashley, Kevin and
Cardie, Claire and
Green, Nancy and
Litman, Diane and
Petasis, Georgios and
Reed, Chris and
Slonim, Noam and
Walker, Vern",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining",
month = sep,
year = "2017",
address = "Copenhagen, Denmark",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/W17-5102",
doi = "10.18653/v1/W17-5102",
pages = "11--21",
abstract = "Argumentative text has been analyzed both theoretically and computationally in terms of argumentative structure that consists of argument components (e.g., claims, premises) and their argumentative relations (e.g., support, attack). Less emphasis has been placed on analyzing the semantic types of argument components. We propose a two-tiered annotation scheme to label claims and premises and their semantic types in an online persuasive forum, Change My View, with the long-term goal of understanding what makes a message persuasive. Premises are annotated with the three types of persuasive modes: ethos, logos, pathos, while claims are labeled as interpretation, evaluation, agreement, or disagreement, the latter two designed to account for the dialogical nature of our corpus. We aim to answer three questions: 1) can humans reliably annotate the semantic types of argument components? 2) are types of premises/claims positioned in recurrent orders? and 3) are certain types of claims and/or premises more likely to appear in persuasive messages than in non-persuasive messages?",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="hidey-etal-2017-analyzing">
<titleInfo>
<title>Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Christopher</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hidey</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Elena</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Musi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Alyssa</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hwang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Smaranda</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Muresan</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kathy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">McKeown</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2017-09</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ivan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Habernal</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Iryna</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gurevych</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ashley</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Claire</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cardie</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nancy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Green</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Diane</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Litman</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Georgios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Petasis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Chris</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Reed</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Noam</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Slonim</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vern</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Walker</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Copenhagen, Denmark</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Argumentative text has been analyzed both theoretically and computationally in terms of argumentative structure that consists of argument components (e.g., claims, premises) and their argumentative relations (e.g., support, attack). Less emphasis has been placed on analyzing the semantic types of argument components. We propose a two-tiered annotation scheme to label claims and premises and their semantic types in an online persuasive forum, Change My View, with the long-term goal of understanding what makes a message persuasive. Premises are annotated with the three types of persuasive modes: ethos, logos, pathos, while claims are labeled as interpretation, evaluation, agreement, or disagreement, the latter two designed to account for the dialogical nature of our corpus. We aim to answer three questions: 1) can humans reliably annotate the semantic types of argument components? 2) are types of premises/claims positioned in recurrent orders? and 3) are certain types of claims and/or premises more likely to appear in persuasive messages than in non-persuasive messages?</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">hidey-etal-2017-analyzing</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/W17-5102</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/W17-5102</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2017-09</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>11</start>
<end>21</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum
%A Hidey, Christopher
%A Musi, Elena
%A Hwang, Alyssa
%A Muresan, Smaranda
%A McKeown, Kathy
%Y Habernal, Ivan
%Y Gurevych, Iryna
%Y Ashley, Kevin
%Y Cardie, Claire
%Y Green, Nancy
%Y Litman, Diane
%Y Petasis, Georgios
%Y Reed, Chris
%Y Slonim, Noam
%Y Walker, Vern
%S Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining
%D 2017
%8 September
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Copenhagen, Denmark
%F hidey-etal-2017-analyzing
%X Argumentative text has been analyzed both theoretically and computationally in terms of argumentative structure that consists of argument components (e.g., claims, premises) and their argumentative relations (e.g., support, attack). Less emphasis has been placed on analyzing the semantic types of argument components. We propose a two-tiered annotation scheme to label claims and premises and their semantic types in an online persuasive forum, Change My View, with the long-term goal of understanding what makes a message persuasive. Premises are annotated with the three types of persuasive modes: ethos, logos, pathos, while claims are labeled as interpretation, evaluation, agreement, or disagreement, the latter two designed to account for the dialogical nature of our corpus. We aim to answer three questions: 1) can humans reliably annotate the semantic types of argument components? 2) are types of premises/claims positioned in recurrent orders? and 3) are certain types of claims and/or premises more likely to appear in persuasive messages than in non-persuasive messages?
%R 10.18653/v1/W17-5102
%U https://aclanthology.org/W17-5102
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5102
%P 11-21
Markdown (Informal)
[Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum](https://aclanthology.org/W17-5102) (Hidey et al., ArgMining 2017)
ACL