Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers) |
| Pages | 250-255 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |
| Event | 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017 - Vancouver, Canada Duration: 30 Jul 2017 → 4 Aug 2017 |
Abstract
Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Language and Linguistics
- Computer Science(all)
- Artificial Intelligence
- Computer Science(all)
- Software
- Social Sciences(all)
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers). 2017. p. 250-255.
Research output: Chapter in book/report/conference proceeding › Conference contribution › Research › peer review
}
TY - GEN
T1 - Argumentation Quality Assessment
T2 - 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2017
AU - Wachsmuth, Henning
AU - Naderi, Nona
AU - Habernal, Ivan
AU - Hou, Yufang
AU - Hirst, Graeme
AU - Gurevych, Iryna
AU - Stein, Benno
N1 - Funding Information: We thank Vinodkumar Prabhakaran and Yonatan Bilu for their ongoing participation in our research on argumentation quality. Also, we acknowledge financial support of the DFG (ArguAna, AIPHES), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Volkswagen Foundation (Lichtenberg-Professorship Program).
PY - 2017/7
Y1 - 2017/7
N2 - Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.
AB - Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040543755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.18653/v1/P17-2039
DO - 10.18653/v1/P17-2039
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85040543755
SP - 250
EP - 255
BT - Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers)
Y2 - 30 July 2017 through 4 August 2017
ER -