The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work shows that attributes of both the audience and communicator constitute important cues for determining argument strength. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a dataset to study the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims to build predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic context of the argument. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models outperform models that rely on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument. |
Similar Papers
Exploring Discourse Structures for Argument Impact Classification (2021.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies have shown that discourse structures influence the persuasiveness of arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose to fuse sentence-level structural discourse information with contextualized features derived from large-scale language models to investigate how discourse relations influence argument impact. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves its backbone RoBERTa around 1.67%, compared with other models, but side effects are brought by other models. |
The Pragmatics behind Politics: Modelling Metaphor, Framing and Emotion in Political Discourse (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing computational models of political discourse do not incorporate metaphor and emotion in their functions. |
| Approach: | They propose to combine metaphor, emotion and political rhetoric to model political discourse . they show that they advance in three tasks: predicting political perspective of news articles, party affiliation of politicians and framing of policy issues. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models improve political discourse prediction, party affiliation and framing of policy issues. |
Exploring the Role of Argument Structure in Online Debate Persuasion (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work in NLP has shown that linguistic features extracted from debate text and features encoding the characteristics of the audience are both critical in persuasion studies. |
| Approach: | They propose to incorporate argument structure features into an LSTM-based model to assess the persuasiveness of debates. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model incorporates argument structure features to predict debaters that make the most convincing arguments on online debate forums. |
Computational Investigations of Pragmatic Effects in Natural Language (N19-3)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent paper examines the relationship between semantics and pragmatics in language. |
| Approach: | They propose to develop computational models that leverage pragmatic knowledge in language . goal is to build better and more pragmatically-aware natural language generation and understanding systems . |
| Outcome: | The proposed models leverage pragmatic knowledge in language crucial to performing many NLP tasks correctly. |
Pragmatics in the Era of Large Language Models: A Survey on Datasets, Evaluation, Opportunities and Challenges (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Bolei Ma, Yuting Li, Wei Zhou, Ziwei Gong, Yang Janet Liu, Katja Jasinskaja, Annemarie Friedrich, Julia Hirschberg, Frauke Kreuter, Barbara Plank
| Challenge: | linguistics studies how context influences meaning of language and how people use it to convey implied meanings, emotions, and intentions. |
| Approach: | They analyze task designs, data collection methods, evaluation approaches and their relevance to real-world applications. |
| Outcome: | The findings highlight emerging trends, challenges, and gaps in existing benchmarks . the findings will contribute to more nuanced and context-aware NLP models . |
A Corpus for Modeling User and Language Effects in Argumentation on Online Debating (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing argumentation datasets have allowed only limited assessment of "user" traits because information on background of users is generally unavailable. |
| Approach: | They present a dataset of 78,376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with surprisingly comprehensive participant profiles. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset includes 78,376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with comprehensive participant profiles. |
Give Me More Feedback: Annotating Argument Persuasiveness and Related Attributes in Student Essays (P18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on automated essay scoring has focused on holistic scoring, which summarizes the quality of an essay with a single score. |
| Approach: | They present a corpus of essays simultaneously annotated with argument components, argument persuasiveness scores, and attributes of argument components that impact an argument’s persuasiveness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed corpus could trigger the development of novel computational models that provide useful feedback to students on why their arguments are (un)persuasive . |
Exploiting Personal Characteristics of Debaters for Predicting Persuasiveness (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several studies have examined persuasiveness in debates by probing the main factors for establishing persuasion, particularly regarding the role of linguistic features of debaters' arguments. |
| Approach: | They propose to model debaters’ prior beliefs, interests, and personality traits based on their previous activity without dependence on explicit user profiles or questionnaires. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves persuasiveness prediction and debater resistance to persuasion. |
AI Argues Differently: Distinct Argumentative and Linguistic Patterns of LLMs in Persuasive Contexts (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Distinguishing LLM-generated text from human-written is a key challenge for safe and ethical NLP, especially in high-stake settings such as persuasive online discourse. |
| Approach: | They propose to use general-purpose linguistic features and domain-specific features related to argument quality to compare human- and LLM-authored arguments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework compares arguments by humans and three LLMs using two easily-interpretable feature sets. |
How Persuasive Is Your Context? (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Empirically, through aseries of experiments, we show that TPS captures a more nuanced notion of persuasiveness than previously proposed metrics. |
| Approach: | They introduce a targeted persuasion score to quantify how persuasive a given context is to an LM. |
| Outcome: | Empirically, the proposed model captures a more nuanced notion of persuasiveness than previously proposed metrics. |