Dans cet article, nous étudions la similarité entre structures argumentatives et discursives en alignant des sous-arbres dans un corpus annoté en RST et en structure argumentative. Contrairement aux travaux précédents, nous nenous intéressons pas uniquement à un alignement relation à relation, mais à unalignement de sous-structures. À l’aide de méthodes de fouille de données, nous montrons que des similitudes existent entre l’argumentation et le discours. L’annotation multiple du corpus permet également de proposer un alignement entreles structures.

In this paper, we investigate similarities between discourse and argumentation structures by aligning subtrees in a corpus containing both annotations. Contrary to previous works, we focus on comparing sub-structures and not only relation matches. Using data mining techniques , we show that discourse and argumen-tation most often align well, and the double annotation allows to derive a mapping between structures. Moreover, this approach enables the study of similarities between discourse structures and differences in their expressive power.

We aim at finding and understanding dependencies between linguistic structures which differ in terms of constraints and expressive power. It has been shown that studying dependencies between the argu- mentation structure (ARG) and the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is non-trivial and requires a fine methodology. In this paper, we propose to take advantage of the AOC-Poset structure to understand how the subgraphs alignements occur in a small corpus annotated in ARG and RST.