Computer-based Analysis of Argumentation Patterns and Strategies in Scientific Communication Texts

The article presents the results of analyzing argumentation patterns that are employed in scientific communication texts. We define argumentation patterns as models of separate arguments and their composite structures repeated across corpus texts. The corpus consists of 98 texts in three different genres: 50 scientific articles from the scientific electronic library CyberLeninka (https://cyberleninka.ru/), 20 popular science articles from the forum habr.com/ru (hereafter ‒ Habr articles), 28 scientific news texts from the Poisk aggregator of scientific news (poisknews.ru). Five experts in theoretical and applied linguistics have performed double annotation of the corpus texts using ArgNetBank Studio platform. Calculated inter-annotator agreement scores correspond to the “substantial agreement” range. Argumentation annotation follows the Argument Interchange Format standard. The results of annotation and the object of the analysis are argumentation graphs with two node types: information nodes (which correspond to argumentative statements) and scheme nodes (which, for each link between statements, indicate its reasoning model in accordance with Walton’s compendium). The study addresses the graphs obtained from the abovementioned graphs by excluding all information nodes and merging the incoming and outcoming links of each excluded information node into one link (thus the obtained graphs consist exclusively of scheme nodes) and the subgraphs of these obtained graphs. We perform a frequency-based analysis of subgraphs by the Frequent Subgraph Mining Method combined with Cordella VF2 algorithm implementation from the NetworkX library for isomorphism check. The analysis results in identification of argumentation patterns (repeating subgraphs from 1 to 9 node in size) that are employed in texts of all genres, one specific genre, as well as patterns repeated within separate texts. We show that scientific articles of the corpus exhibit the greatest stability and diversity of argumentation patterns, while popular science texts are marked by the active use of polemic argumentation, and patterns in scientific news are based on two reasoning models characteristic of compact argumentation. Patterns that repeat in separate texts show the same tendencies as genre-specific patterns. Using the identified patterns, we conduct clustering of the corpus texts with Ward and K-means algorithms. Resulting clusters correspond to groups of texts with similar argumentation strategies and exhibit homogeneity of texts by genre and thematic field. Identified patterns can be used not only for classifications but also for assessing the argumentative organization of texts extracting persuasive argumentation, its generation etc. Works on this topic are still underrepresented for texts in English, while for texts in Russian, such automatic analysis of argumentation patterns has not yet been performed.

1. Al-Khatib K., Wachsmuth H., Kiesel J., Hagen M., Stein B. A News Editorial Corpus for Mining Argumentation Strategies. Proc. of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, 2016, pp. 3433–3443.

2. Al Khatib K. Computational Analysis of Argumentation Strategies. Dissertation to obtain the academic degree of Dr. rer. nat. Faculty of Media Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany, September 2019.

3. Al-Khatib K. Wachsmuth H., Kiesel J., Hagen M., Stein B. Patterns of Argumentation Strategies across Topics. Proc. of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 7–11, 2017, pp. 1351–1357.

4. Anand P., King J., Boyd-Graber J., Wagner E., Martell C., Oard D., Resnik P. Believe Me—We Can Do ThisAnnotating Persuasive Acts in Blog Text. Proc. of the conf. Computational Models of Natural Argument, San Francisco, California, USA, August 7, 2011.

5. Cordella L. P., Foggia P., Sansone C., Vento M. A (Sub) Graph Isomorphism Algorithm for Matching Large Graphs. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2004, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 1367‒1372.

6. El Baff R., Wachsmuth H., Al Khatib K., Stede M., Stein B. Computational Argumentation Synthesis as a Language Modeling Task. In: Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation. Tokyo, Japan, 2019, pp. 54–64.

7. Hagberg A. A., Schult D. A. and Swart P. J. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. Proc. of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008), Pasadena, CA USA, pp. 11–15, Aug 2008.

8. Jiang C., Coenen F., Zito M. A Survey of Frequent Subgraph Mining Algorithms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 2004, vol. 000(1), pp. 1–31

9. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2013.

10. Lauscher A., Wachsmuth H., Gurevych I., Glavaš G. Scientia Potentia Est – On the Role of Knowledge in Computational Argumentation, arXiv: 2107.00281v3 [cs.CL] 8 Nov 2022.

11. Mirzakhmedova N., Kiesel J., Al-Khatib K., Stein B. Unveiling the Power of Argument Arrangement in Online Persuasive Discussions. Proc. of the conf 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2023) ‒ Singapore, Singapore, 6‒10 Dec, 2023. pp. 15659‒15671.

12. Pimenov I. S., Salomatina N. V., Timofeeva M. K. Formal Identification of Argumentation Patterns in Scientific Texts. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2022, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 21–36. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2022-20-1-21-36.

13. Pimenov I. S., Salomatina N. V. Identification of Scientific Texts with Similar Argumentation Complexity. 2022 IEEE International Multi-Conference on Engineering, Computer and Information Sciences (SIBIRCON), 2022, pp. 880–875.

14. Rahwan I., Reed C. The argument interchange format. Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. Rahwan I. and Simari G., Springer, 2009, pp. 383–402.

15. Salomatina N. V., Pimenov I. S., Sidorova E. A. Automatic identification of arguments with ethos and pathos in scientific articles. Thesis of the International conf. Marchuk Scientific Reading ‒ 2022, 3‒7 October 2022, Academgorodok, Novosibirsk, Russia, 2022. (in Russ.)

16. Sidorova E. A., Akhmadeeva I. R., Zagorulko Yu. A., Kononenko I. S., Sery A. S., Chagina P. M., Shestakov V. K. An integrated approach to the analysis of argumentative relationships in scientific communication texts. Ontology of deSiing, 2023, vol. 13, nо. 4(50), pp. 562–579. (in Russ.)

17. Sidorova Е. А., Akhmadeeva I. R., Zagorulko Yu. A., Sery A. S., Shestakov V. K. Research platform for the study of argumentation in popular science discourse. Ontology deSiing, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4(38), pp. 489‒502. (in Russ.)

18. Ullmann J. R. An Algorithm for Subgraph Isomorphism. Journal of the ACM, 1976, vol. 23(1), pp. 31–42.

19. Wachsmuth H., Stede M., El Baff R., Al-Khatib K., Skeppstedt M., Stein B. Argumentation Synthesis following Rhetorical Strategies. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, August 20‒26, 2018. pp. 3753–3765.

20. Walton D., Reed C., Macagno F. Argumentation schemes Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 443 p.

21. Yan M., Lin Y., Litman D. Argumentatively Phony? Detecting Misinformation via Argument Mining. ACM Trans. Graph. 37, 4, Article 111 (August 2018), 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1122445.1122456.

22. Zukerman I., McConachy R., George S. Using argumentation strategies in automated argument generation. In INLG’2000 Proc. of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation. Mitzpe Ramon, Israel. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000, pp. 55–62.