Coherence of Argumentative Dialogue Snippets: A New Method for Large Scale Evaluation with an Application to Inference Anchoring Theory

AbstractThis paper introduces a novel method for testing the components of theories of (dialogue) coherence through utterance substitution. The method is described and then applied to Inference Anchoring Theory (IAT) in a large scale experimental study with 933 dialogue snippets and 87 annotators. IAT has been used for substantial corpus annotation and practical applications. To address the aim of finding out if and to what extent two aspects of IAT – illocutionary acts and propositional relations – contribute to dialogue coherence, we designed an experiment for systematically comparing the coherence ratings for several variants of short debate snippets. The comparison is between original human-human debate snippets, snippets generated with an IAT-compliant algorithm and snippets produced with ablated versions of the algorithm. This allows us to systematically compare snippets that have identical underlying structures as well as IAT-deficient structures with each other. We found that propositional relations do impact on dialogue coherence (at a statistically highly significant level) whereas we found no such effect for illocutionary act expression. This result suggests that fine-grained inferential relations impact on dialogue coherence, complementing the higher-level coherence structures of, for instance, Rhetorical Structure Theory.