Abstract

The role of interrogative sentences in political argumentation remains largely unexplored. This study addresses this gap by introducing a new Polish-language dataset featuring diverse examples of interrogative sentences in political discourse (election debates). The dataset serves as a unique resource for theoretical research in Argumentation Mining and Natural Language Inference through the annotation of ⟨IS, C⟩ and ⟨IS, P⟩ pairs, where IS denotes an interrogative sentence, C represents its corresponding conclusion, and P indicates a premise. The annotations primarily capture implicitly expressed argumentative structures and can serve as a benchmark for large language models (LLMs), particularly those trained on Polish-language data. Furthermore, this is the first study in Argumentation Mining where annotators independently verbalize the content of conclusions and premises conveyed through speech acts constructed with interrogative sentences. Our findings reveal that interrogative sentences in political debates most frequently function as implicature (approx. 45%), normative propositions (approx. 31%), statements expressing epistemic states (approx. 20%), and presuppositions (approx. 4%). Semantic similarity analysis confirms that annotators achieve a high level of consistency in identifying and verbalizing the content implied by interrogative sentences. The dataset provides a robust foundation for developing advanced language models and for further research into the role of interrogative sentences in political discourse.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-025-09674-z
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Argumentation
Also cites 46 works outside this index ↓
  1. Ajjour, Y., J. Kiesel, B. Stein, and M. Potthast. 2023. Topic ontologies for arguments. In Findings of the As…
  2. Blokker, N., A. Blessing, E. Dayanik, J. Kuhn, S. Padó, and G. Lapesa. 2023. Between welcome culture and bord…
    Language Resources and Evaluation  
  3. Braun, D. 2011. Implicating questions. Mind & Language 26 (5): 574–595.
    Mind & Language  
  4. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, C. Reed, and P. Saint-Dizier. 2016. Theoretical foundations for illocutionary struc…
    Argument & Computation  
  5. Cardoso, H. L., R. Sousa-Silva, P. Carvalho, and B. Martins. 2023. Argumentation models and their use in corp…
    Natural Language Engineering  
  6. Chesnevar, C., S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, and S. Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument…
    The Knowledge Engineering Review  
  7. Clayman, S.E., and J. Heritage. 2002. Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in t…
    Journal of Communication  
  8. Recognizing textual entailment: Models and applications
  9. de Oliveira Fernandes, D., and S. Oswald. 2022. On the rhetorical effectiveness of implicit meaning—A pragmat…
    Languages  
  10. Edwards, J. A. 2005. The transcription of discourse. In The handbook of discourse analysis, 321–348.
  11. Eemeren, F. H. R. van Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. De Gruyter Mouton.
  12. Eriksson, G. 2011. Follow-up questions in political press conferences. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3331–3344.
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  13. Farkas, D. F. 2022. Non-intrusive questions as a special type of non-canonical questions. Journal of Semantic…
    Journal of Semantics  
  14. Gemechu, D,. R. Ruiz-Dolz, and C. Reed. 2024. ARIES: A general benchmark for argument relation identification…
  15. Goffredo, P., E. Cabrio, S. Villata, S. Haddadan, and J. T. Sanchez. 2023. Disputool 2.0: A modular architect…
    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence  
  16. Gordon, T.F., H. Prakken, and D. Walton. 2007. The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificia…
    Artificial Intelligence  
  17. Green, N. 2017. Manual identification of arguments with implicit conclusions using semantic rules for argumen…
  18. Haddadan, S., E. Cabrio, and S. Villata. 2019b. Yes, we can! Mining arguments in 50 years of US presidential …
  19. Haddadan, S., E. Cabrio, S. Villata. 2019a. DISPUTool – A tool for the argumentative analysis of political de…
  20. Hautli-Janisz, A., K. Budzynska, C. McKillop, B. Plüss, V. Gold, and C. Reed. 2022a. Questions in argumentati…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  21. Hautli-Janisz, A., K. Budzynska, and C. Reed. 2022b. Conventional implicatures in argumentation. Languages 8 …
    Languages  
  22. Heritage, J. 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal o…
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  23. Heritage, J. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language …
    Research on Language & Social Interaction  
  24. Hinterhölzl, R., & Munaro, N. 2021. On the illocutionary force of exclamatives and non-canonical questions. E…
  25. Hitchcock, D. 2020 Arguing for questions. In B Garssen, F Snoeck Henkemans (Eds) From argument schemes to arg…
  26. Huddleston, R. 1994. The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics 30 (2): 411–439.
    Journal of Linguistics  
  27. Ilie, C. 2022. Strategic Questioning. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Persuasion (pp. 165–189). Rou…
  28. Ille 2023. Parliamentary Follow-ups as Rhetorical Questioning-Answering Strategies.
  29. Jo, Y., J. Visser, C. Reed, and E. Hovy. 2019. A cascade model for proposition extraction in argumentation. I…
  30. Kikteva, Z., Trautsch, A., Herbold, S., & Hautli, A. 2024. Question type prediction in natural debate. In Pro…
  31. Koit, M. 2021. How are the members of a parliament arguing? Analysis of an argument corpus. In ICAART (2) (pp…
  32. Koszowy, M., S. Oswald, K. Budzynska, B. Konat, and P. Gygax. 2022. A pragmatic account of rephrase in argume…
    Informal Logic  
  33. Krifka, M. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: Declarative questions, negated questions, and question t…
    Semantics and Linguistic Theory  
  34. Lawrence, J., & Reed, C. 2015. Combining argument mining techniques. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Ar…
  35. Lawrence, J., and C. Reed. 2020. Argument mining: A survey. Computational Linguistics 45 (4): 765–818.
    Computational Linguistics  
  36. Pragmatics
  37. Lindahl, A., and L. Borin. 2024. Annotation for computational argumentation analysis: Issues and perspectives…
    Language and Linguistics Compass  
  38. Lippi, M., P. Torroni, Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press. 2…
    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence  
  39. Vallauri, E., L. Baranzini, D. Cimmino, F. Cominetti, C. Coppola, and G. Mannaioli. 2020. Implicit argumentat…
  40. Menini, S., Cabrio, E., Tonelli, S., & Villata, S. 2018. Never retreat, never retract: Argumentation analysis…
  41. Puczyłowski, T. 2022. A taxonomy of noncanonical uses of interrogatives. Axiomathes 32 (3): 505–527.
    Axiomathes  
  42. Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In Proceedi…
  43. Ruiz-Dolz, R., M. Nofre, M. Taulé, S. Heras, and A. García-Fornes. 2021. Vivesdebate: A new annotated multili…
    Applied Sciences  
  44. Speech acts
  45. Stede, M., & Schneider, J. 2019. Introduction. In Argumentation mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language …
  46. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning