{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,29]],"date-time":"2026-04-29T03:47:43Z","timestamp":1777434463199,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,29]],"date-time":"2018-06-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1530230400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Argument &amp; Computation"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,7,16]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Given an issue and related propositions for or against it, a major challenge to make these propositions accessible to readers is to produce a synthesis that is readable, synthetic enough, and relevant for various types of needs and points of view. Based on the Generative Lexicon (GL) Qualia Structure, which is a kind of lexical and knowledge repository, that we have enhanced in different manners and associated with inferences and language patterns, we show, via a number of preliminary experiments, how to construct a synthesis that outlines the typical elements found in propositions for or against a controversial issue. We propose a two-level approach: a synthesis of the propositions that have been mined, and navigation facilities that allow users to access arguments, structured in clusters, in order to get more details. This approach contributes to characterize why and how propositions support or attack an issue or some facets of that issue.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3233\/aac-180035","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,29]],"date-time":"2018-06-29T16:36:25Z","timestamp":1530290185000},"page":"137-154","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["A\u00a0two-level approach to generate synthetic argumentation reports"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"9","author":[{"given":"Patrick","family":"Saint-Dizier","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"CNRS -IRIT, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France. E-mail:\u00a0"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref001","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4000\/mots.19843"},{"key":"ref002","unstructured":"A.\u00a0Baker, Arguments in advertising, in: Proceedings of CMNA17, 2017."},{"key":"ref003","unstructured":"K.\u00a0Budzinska, M.\u00a0Janier, C.\u00a0Reed, P.\u00a0Saint-Dizier, M.\u00a0Stede and O.\u00a0Yakorska, A\u00a0model for processing illocutionary structures and argumentation in debates, in: Proceedings of LREC14, 2014."},{"key":"ref004","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-94-007-5189-7_19"},{"key":"ref005","unstructured":"A.\u00a0Cruse, Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 1986."},{"key":"ref006","unstructured":"V.W.\u00a0Feng and G.\u00a0Hirst, Classifying arguments by scheme, in: Proceedings of 49th ACL: Human Language Technologies, 2011."},{"key":"ref007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"A.\u00a0Fiedler and H.\u00a0Horacek, Argumentation within deductive reasoning, Journal of Intelligent Systems22(1) (2007).","DOI":"10.1002\/int.20189"},{"key":"ref008","unstructured":"N.\u00a0Green, Argumentation mining in scientific discourse, in: Proceedings of CMNA17, 2017."},{"key":"ref009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M.\u00a0Janier and C.\u00a0Reed, Towards a theory of close analysis for dispute mediation discourse, Journal of Argumentation22 (2015).","DOI":"10.1007\/s10503-015-9386-y"},{"key":"ref010","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3115\/v1\/W15-0501"},{"key":"ref011","unstructured":"I.\u00a0Mani, The Generative Lexicon, John Benjamins Publishing, 2001."},{"key":"ref012","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3115\/v1\/W15-0503"},{"key":"ref013","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1568234.1568246"},{"key":"ref014","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4018\/jcini.2013010101"},{"key":"ref015","unstructured":"C.\u00a0Perelman and L.O.\u00a0Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, 1977."},{"key":"ref016","unstructured":"J.\u00a0Pustejovsky, The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, 1986."},{"key":"ref017","unstructured":"J.\u00a0Redmond, Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning, Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Humanities and Social Sciences, Springer, 2017."},{"key":"ref018","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Saint Dizier, The bottleneck of knowledge and language resources, in: Proceedings of LREC16, 2016."},{"key":"ref019","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/W16-6613"},{"key":"ref020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Saint Dizier, Knowledge-driven argument mining based on the qualia structure, Journal of Argumentation and Computation8(2) (2017).","DOI":"10.3233\/AAC-170124"},{"key":"ref021","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.18653\/v1\/W15-4631"},{"key":"ref022","unstructured":"M.G.\u00a0Villalba and P.\u00a0Saint-Dizier, Some facets of argument mining for opinion analysis, in: Proceedings of COMMA12, IOS Publishing, 2012."},{"key":"ref023","unstructured":"M.\u00a0Walker, P.\u00a0Anand and R.\u00a0Abbot, A corpus for research on deliberation and debate, in: Proceedings of LREC 2012, 2012."},{"key":"ref024","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9781316340554"},{"key":"ref025","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"G.\u00a0Winterstein, What but-sentences argue for: An argumentative analysis of \u2018but\u2019, Lingua122 (2012). doi:10.1016\/j.lingua.2012.09.014.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.lingua.2012.09.014"},{"key":"ref026","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3115\/1118253.1118262"}],"container-title":["Argument &amp; Computation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.3233\/AAC-180035","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.3233\/AAC-180035","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.3233\/AAC-180035","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,28]],"date-time":"2026-04-28T11:53:52Z","timestamp":1777377232000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.3233\/AAC-180035"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,29]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,7,16]]}},"alternative-id":["10.3233\/AAC-180035"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/aac-180035","relation":{},"ISSN":["1946-2166","1946-2174"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1946-2166","type":"print"},{"value":"1946-2174","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,6,29]]}}}