Analyzing the Semantic Types of Claims and Premises in an Online Persuasive Forum


Argumentative text has been analyzed both theoretically and computationally in terms of argumentative structure that consists of argument components (e.g., claims, premises) and their argumentative relations (e.g., support, attack). Less emphasis has been placed on analyzing the semantic types of argument components. We propose a two-tiered annotation scheme to label claims and premises and their semantic types in an online persuasive forum, Change My View, with the long-term goal of understanding what makes a message persuasive. Premises are annotated with the three types of persuasive modes: ethos, logos, pathos, while claims are labeled as interpretation, evaluation, agreement, or disagreement, the latter two designed to account for the dialogical nature of our corpus. We aim to answer three questions: 1) can humans reliably annotate the semantic types of argument components? 2) are types of premises/claims positioned in recurrent orders? and 3) are certain types of claims and/or premises more likely to appear in persuasive messages than in non-persuasive messages?

In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argumentation Mining
Alyssa Hwang
Alyssa Hwang
PhD Student

I am a first-year PhD student in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. I am particularly interested in the intersections of Natural Language Processing, Linguistics, and Psychology, especially expanding NLU resources for nonstandard English. I am supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program. I earned my BS in Computer Science at Columbia University, where I conducted research and wrote an undergraduate thesis with Prof. Kathleen McKeown.