Dialoogiaktid ja argumendid Riigikogu stenogrammides: pilootuuring

Mare Koit


Artikkel annab ülevaate Eesti Parlamendi – Riigikogu – istungite stenogrammide pilootuuringust. Esmalt esitatakse arutelude üldine struktuur dialoogiaktide kaudu. Seejärel keskendutakse läbirääkimistele ja neis esitatavate argumentide ülesehitusele. Uurimuse kaugem eesmärk on luua vahendid struktuuri automaatseks tuvastamiseks ning parlamendiläbirääkimiste ja poliitiliste argumentide sisu analüüsimiseks.


Dialogue acts and arguments in records of the Estonian parliament: A preliminary study

In this paper a preliminary study on verbatim records of sittings held in the Estonian Parliament is carried out. The structure of the discussions is represented by using the dialogue acts of a custom-made typology. The premises and claims of arguments used in negotiations and their relations are annotated. The further aim is to create means for automatic recognition of the structure as well as analysis of contents of parliamentary negotiations and political arguments.


negotiation, parliament, verbatim record, dialogue act, argument, knowledge representation, Estonian

Full Text:



Abercrombie, Gavin; Batista-Navarro, Riza 2018. A sentiment-labelled Corpus of Hansard Parliamentary Debate Speeches. – Darja Fišer, Maria Eskevich, Franciska de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2018 Workshop ParlaCLARIN: Creating and Using Parliamentary Corpora, 43–47.

Aggelen, Astrid van; Hollink, Laura; Kemman, Max; Kleppe, Martijn; Beunders, Henri 2017. The debates of the European Parliament as linked open data. – Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability, 8 (2), 271—281. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160227

Aller, Sven; Gerassimenko, Olga; Hennoste, Tiit; Kasterpalu, Riina; Koit, Mare; Mihkels, Krista; Laanesoo, Kirsi; Rääbis, Andriela 2014. Dialoogide pragmaatilise analüüsi tarkvara [’Software for pragmatic analysis of dialogues’]. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 10, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa10.02

Amgoud, Leila; Besnard, Philippe; Hunter, Anthony 2015. Logical representation and analysis for RC-arguments. – IEEE 27th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2015.28

Atkinson, Katie; Baroni, Pietro; Giacomin, Massimiliano; Hunter, Anthony; Prakken, Henry; Reed, Chris; Simari, Guillermo; Thimm, Matthias; Villata, Serena 2017. Towards artificial argumentation. – AI Magazine, 38 (3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2704

Bara, Judith; Weale, Albert; Bicquelet-Lock, Aude 2007. Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. – Swiss Political Science Review, 13 (4), 577–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00090.x

Besnard, Philippe; Hunter, Anthony 2008. Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262026437.001.0001

Bunt, Harry; Petukhova, Volha; Traum, David; Alexandersson, Jan 2017. Dialogue act annotation with the ISO 24617-2 Standard. – D. Dahl (Ed.), Multimodal Interaction with W3C Standards: Toward Natural User Interfaces to Everything. Springer, Cham, 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42816-1_6

Chesñevar, Carlos; Maguitman, Ana; Loui, Ronald 2000. Logical models of argument. – ACM Computing Surveys, 32 (4), 337–383. https://doi.org/10.1145/371578.371581

Dispute 2017. Dispute Resolution Reference Guide. Government of Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/dprs-sprd/res/drrg-mrrc/03.html (18.7.2020).

Hennoste, Tiit; Rääbis, Andriela 2004. Dialoogiaktid eesti infodialoogides: tüpoloogia ja analüüs [‘Dialogue Acts in Estonian Information Dialogues: Typology and Analysis’]. Tartu: TÜ Kirjastus. http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/handle/10062/18995

Koit, Mare; Õim, Haldur; Roosmaa, Tiit 2019. How do the members of a parliament negotiate? Analysing verbatim records. – Jan Dietz, David Aveiro, Joaquim Filipe (Eds), Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), 2 (KEOD). Vienna: SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda, 329−335. https://doi.org/10.5220/0008345303290335

Koit, Mare 2017. Dialoogsüsteem ja läbirääkimiste struktuur [‘Dialogue systems and the structure of negotiation’]. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 13, 37−51. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa13.03

Koondkorpus: Riigikogu. https://www.keeletehnoloogia.ee/et/ekktt/ekktt-projektid/eesti-keele-koondkorpus (5.1.2020).

ParlaCLARIN 2018. https://www.clarin.eu/ParlaCLARIN (5.1.2020).

Negotiation = What is Negotiation? https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/negotiation.html (5.1.2020).

Petukhova, Volha; Malchanau, Andrei; Bunt, Harry 2015. Modelling argumentative behaviour in parliamentary debates: data collection, analysis and test case. – M. Baldoni et al. (Eds), Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. CMNA 2015, IWEC 2015, IWEC 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9935. Springer, Cham, 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46218-9_3

Riigikogu. https://www.riigikogu.ee/ (5.1.2020).

Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya (Eds.) 2012. Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001

Stab, Christian; Gurevych, Iryna 2013. Guidelines for Annotating Argument Components and Relations in Persuasive Essays. Darmstadt: Technische Universität Darmstadt.

Stab, Christian; Gurevych, Iryna 2014. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. – Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. Dublin: Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, 1501–1510.

Thimm, Matthias 2014. Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. – Künstliche Intelligenz, 28 (3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-014-0307-2

Traum, David; Larsson, Staffan 2003. The information state approach to dialogue management. – J. van Kuppevelt, R. Smith (Eds), Current and New Directions in Discourse and Dialogue. TLTB, 22. Kluwer, 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0019-2_15

Trautmann, Dietrich; Daxenberger, Johannes; Stab, Christian; Schütze, Hinrich; Gurevych, Iryna 2019. Robust argument unit recognition and classification. – Computer Science > Computation and Language. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09688 (5.1.2020).

Venkata, Sakala; Rohit, Krishna; Singh, Navjyoti 2018. Analysis of speeches in Indian parliamentary debates. – Computer Science > Computation and Language. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06834 (5.1.2020).

Vilares, David; He, Yulan 2017. Detecting perspectives in political debates. – Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1573–1582. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1165

Working 2017. CLARIN-PLUS Workshop "Working with Parliamentary Records". https://www.clarin.eu/event/2017/clarin-plus-workshop-working-parliamentary-records (5.1.2020).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa16.06


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Mare Koit

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563