Abstract
One of the essential activities carried out by humans in their everyday linguistic interactions is the act of drawing a conclusion from given facts through some forms of reasoning. Given a sequence of statements (i.e. the premises), humans are able to infer or derive a conclusion that follows from the facts described in the premises. In the computational linguistics field, discourse analyses have been conducted to identify the discourse structure of connected text, i.e. the nature of the discourse relationships between sentences. In parallel, research in argumentation theory has proposed argumentation schemes as structures for defining various kinds of arguments. Although the two fields of study are strongly intertwined, only a few works have put them into relation. However, a clear natural language account for argumentation schemes is still missing. To address this open issue, our work analyses how argumentation schemes fit into the discourse relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
