Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (CMNA 2015, IWEC 2015, IWEC 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9935))

Abstract

We examine whether using frame choices in forum statements can help us identify framing strategies in parliamentary discourse. In this analysis, we show how features based on embedding representations can improve the discovery of various frames in argumentative political speech. Given the complex nature of the parliamentary discourse, the initial results that are presented here are promising. We further present a manually annotated corpus for frame recognition in parliamentary discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An example from our manually annotated corpus of parliamentary statements.

  2. 2.

    http://idebate.org/debatabase.

  3. 3.

    http://takelab.fer.hr/data/comarg/.

  4. 4.

    The third frame is modified to accommodate frames in our current corpus.

  5. 5.

    http://svmlight.joachims.org/.

  6. 6.

    https://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/tj/svm_light/svm_multiclass.html.

References

  1. Boltužić, F., Šnajder, J.: Back up your stance: recognizing arguments in online discussions. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 49–58 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boltužić, F., Šnajder, J.: Identifying prominent arguments in online debates using semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 110–115. Association for Computational Linguistics, Denver, June 2015

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Combining textual entailment and argumentation theory for supporting online debates interactions. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, pp. 208–212. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. De Marneffe, M.C., Manning, C.D.: The stanford typed dependencies representation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, COLING 2008, pp. 1–8. Association for Computational Linguistics (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Entman, R.M.: Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43(4), 51–58 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Why are you taking this stance? Identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 751–762. Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha, October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kiros, R., Zhu, Y., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R.S., Torralba, A., Urtasun, R., Fidler, S.: Skip-thought vectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06726 (2015)

  8. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013)

  9. Misra, A., Anand, P., Tree, J.E.F., Walker, M.A.: Using summarization to discover argument facets in online idealogical [sic] dialog. In: The 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL HLT 2015, Denver, Colorado, USA, May 31–June 5, 2015, pp. 430–440 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell, J., Lapata, M.: Vector-based models of semantic composition. In: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 236–244 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Socher, R., Pennington, J., Huang, E.H., Ng, A.Y., Manning, C.D.: Semi-supervised recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 151–161. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tai, K.S., Socher, R., Manning, C.D.: Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00075 (2015)

  13. Wang, T., Mohamed, A., Hirst, G.: Learning lexical embeddings with syntactic and lexicographic knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (vol. 2: Short Papers), pp. 458–463. Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, July 2015

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. We thank Patricia Araujo Thaine, Krish Perumal, and Sara Scharf for their contributions to the annotation of parliamentary statements, and Tong Wang for sharing the syntactic embeddings. We also thank Tong Wang and Ryan Kiros for fruitful discussions, and Christopher Cochrane for insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Nona Naderi & Graeme Hirst

Authors
  1. Nona Naderi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graeme Hirst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nona Naderi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Matteo Baldoni

  2. Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Cristina Baroglio

  3. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Floris Bex

  4. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom

    Floriana Grasso

  5. University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

    Nancy Green

  6. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia

    Mohammad-Reza Namazi-Rad

  7. Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

    Masayuki Numao

  8. De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

    Merlin Teodosia Suarez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Naderi, N., Hirst, G. (2016). Argumentation Mining in Parliamentary Discourse. In: Baldoni, M., et al. Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. CMNA IWEC IWEC 2015 2015 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9935. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46217-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46218-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation