Elena Musi


pdf bib
Interpreting Verbal Irony: Linguistic Strategies and the Connection to theType of Semantic Incongruity
Debanjan Ghosh | Elena Musi | Smaranda Muresan
Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2020


pdf bib
Rubric Reliability and Annotation of Content and Argument in Source-Based Argument Essays
Yanjun Gao | Alex Driban | Brennan Xavier McManus | Elena Musi | Patricia Davies | Smaranda Muresan | Rebecca J. Passonneau
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications

We present a unique dataset of student source-based argument essays to facilitate research on the relations between content, argumentation skills, and assessment. Two classroom writing assignments were given to college students in a STEM major, accompanied by a carefully designed rubric. The paper presents a reliability study of the rubric, showing it to be highly reliable, and initial annotation on content and argumentation annotation of the essays.


pdf bib
A Multi-layer Annotated Corpus of Argumentative Text: From Argument Schemes to Discourse Relations
Elena Musi | Manfred Stede | Leonard Kriese | Smaranda Muresan | Andrea Rocci
Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)


pdf bib
Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum
Christopher Hidey | Elena Musi | Alyssa Hwang | Smaranda Muresan | Kathy McKeown
Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining

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?


pdf bib
Towards Feasible Guidelines for the Annotation of Argument Schemes
Elena Musi | Debanjan Ghosh | Smaranda Muresan
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining2016)