The computational analysis of argumentation strategies is substantial for many downstream applications. It is required for nearly all kinds of text synthesis, writing assistance, and dialogue-management tools. While various tasks have been tackled in...
mehr
The computational analysis of argumentation strategies is substantial for many downstream applications. It is required for nearly all kinds of text synthesis, writing assistance, and dialogue-management tools. While various tasks have been tackled in the area of computational argumentation, such as argumentation mining and quality assessment, the task of the computational analysis of argumentation strategies in texts has so far been overlooked. This thesis principally approaches the analysis of the strategies manifested in the persuasive argumentative discourses that aim for persuasion as well as in the deliberative argumentative discourses that aim for consensus. To this end, the thesis presents a novel view of argumentation strategies for the above two goals. Based on this view, new models for pragmatic and stylistic argument attributes are proposed, new methods for the identification of the modelled attributes have been developed, and a new set of strategy principles in texts according to the identified attributes is presented and explored. Overall, the thesis contributes to the theory, data, method, and evaluation aspects of the analysis of argumentation strategies. The models, methods, and principles developed and explored in this thesis can be regarded as essential for promoting the applications mentioned above, among others.
