@InProceedings{hidey-EtAl:2017:ArgumentMining,
  author    = {Hidey, Christopher  and  Musi, Elena  and  Hwang, Alyssa  and  Muresan, Smaranda  and  McKeown, Kathy},
  title     = {Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining},
  month     = {September},
  year      = {2017},
  address   = {Copenhagen, Denmark},
  publisher = {Association for Computational Linguistics},
  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?},
  url       = {http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-5102}
}