Utilizing Word Vector Representation for Classifying Argument Components in Persuasive Essays

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    Aside from the proper usage of grammar, diction and punctuation, a good essay must have cohesion and coherence. In persuasive essay, argumentative discourse is important as the parameter to see the cohesion and coherence among the arguments. An argument is characterized by one's stance (claim) which is strengthened with facts (premises) to complete the validity of the stance. Ideally, claims must be followed by premises either they support or attack the claims. In this paper, we try to identify 4 kinds of argument components (major claim, claim, premise, and non-argumentative) using some predefined features and measure the performance of word vector representation utilization in identifying argument components. We also present the results of our initial experiment by using deep learning to classify the argument components.



  • Keywords

    argument component, word vector representation, deep learning

  • References

      [1] Bengio, Y., Ducharme, R., Vincent, P. and Jauvin, C. (2003). A Neural Probabilistic Language Model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, pages 1137-1155.

      [2] Bengio, Y. and LeCun, Y. (2007). Scaling learning algorithms towards AI. In Bottou, L., Chapelle, O., DeCoste, D., Weston, J. (Eds.), Large Scale Kernel Machines. MIT Press.

      [3] Florou, E., Konstantopoulos, S., Kukurikos, A. and Karampiperis, P. (2013). Argument Extraction for Supporting Public Policy Formulation. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, and Humanities, pages 49-54, Sofia, Bulgaria, August 8.

      [4] Kim, Y. (2014). Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751, October 25-29, Doha, Qatar.

      [5] Knott, A. and Dale, R. (1993). Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Rhetorical Relations. Technical Report HCRC/RP-39, Edinburgh, Scotland.

      [6] Lawrence, S., Giles, C. L., Tsoi, A. C. and Back, A. D. (1997). Face Recognition: A Convolutional Neural-Network Approach. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 8, No. 1, January.

      [7] LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y. and Haffner, P. (2013). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324.

      [8] Madnani, N., Heilman, M., Tetreault, J. and Chodorow, M. (2012). Identifying High-Level Organizational Elements in Argumentative Discourse. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 20-28, Montreal, Canada, June 3-8.

      [9] Mikolov, T., Stuskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S. and Dean, J. (2013). Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality. Proceedings of Neural Information Processing System (NIPS).

      [10] Moens, M.F., Boiy, E., Palau, R. M. and Reed, C. (2007). Automatic Detection of Arguments in Legal Texts. The 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, June 4-8, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California.

      [11] Ong, N., Litman, D. and Brusilovsky, A. (2014). Ontology-Based Argument Mining and Automatic Essay Scoring. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pages 24-28, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 26.

      [12] Peldszus, A. and Stede, M. (2013). From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), 7(1): 1-31.

      [13] Pennington, J., Socher, R. and Manning, C. D. (2014). GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Volume 14, pages 1532-1543.

      [14] Prasad, R., Miltsakaki, E., Dinesh, N., Lee, A., Joshi, A., Robaldo, L. and Webber, B. L. (2007). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0 annotation manual. Technical report, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.

      [15] Song, Y., Heilman, M., Klebanov, B. B. and Deane, P. (2014). Applying Argumentation Schemes for Essay Scoring. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pages 69-78, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 26.

      [16] Stab, C. and Gurevych, I. (2014a). Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1501-1510, Dublin, Ireland, August 23-29.

      [17] Stab, C. and Gurevych, I. (2014b). Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 46-56, Doha, Qatar.

      [18] Stab, C. and Gurevych, I. (2016). Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays. arXiv preprint, arXiv: 1604.07370.

      [19] Suhartono, D. (2015). Klasifikasi Komponen Argumen Secara Otomatis pada Dokumen Teks berbentuk Esai Argumentatif. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1512.00578.

      [20] The Argumentative (Persuasive) Essay (2013). LB Brief Handbook, 5th edition, Chapter 12; OWL at Purdue website. Austin Peay State University.

      Walton, D.N. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum




Article ID: 26406
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v8i1.9.26406

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.