Annotation of Rhetorical Roles and Syllogistic Relations in Czech Argumentative Legal and Administrative Texts

Cinková, Silvie; Šamánková, Jana; Kubíková, Barbora; Novotná, Tereza; Eichler, Vítek

doi:10.2478/jazcas-2025-0013

Abstract

We present KUKY 1.0, a publicly available corpus annotated by lawyers for rhetorical structure and relevance. We explain the concepts as well as the annotation procedure. Eventually we discuss the challenge of inter-annotator agreement.

References

Aristotle (2004). Rhetoric. New York: Dover Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bendová, K., and Cinková, S. (2021). Adaptation of Classic Readability Metrics to Czech. In 24^th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 159–171.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bhattacharya, P. et al. (2023). DeepRhole: Deep Learning for Rhetorical Role Labeling of Sentences in Legal Case Documents. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31(1), pp. 53–90. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09304-5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cinková, S. (2024). Linguistic Factors in the Readability of Czech Administrative and Legal Texts. In: Z. Bohušová – M. Dove (eds.): To Understand Is to Be Free. Interdisciplinary Aspects of Comprehensibility and Understanding. Vienna, Austria: Praesens Verlag, pp. 303–325.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa, California: Impact Information. Accessible at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228965813_The_Principles_of_Readability.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gardner, J. A. (1993). Legal Argument: The Structure and Language of Effective Advocacy. LexisNexis. Accessible at: https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/legal-argument--the-structure-and-language-of-effective-advocacy-sku-us-ebook-03082-epub.html.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grover, C., Hachey, B., and Korycinski, C. (2003). Summarising Legal Texts: Sentential Tense and Argumentative Roles. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 Text Summarization Workshop, pp. 33–40. Accessible at: https://aclanthology.org/W03-0505/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Habernal, I. et al. (2024). Mining Legal Arguments in Court Decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32(3), pp. 1–38. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09361-y.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malik, V. et al. (2022). Semantic Segmentation of Legal Documents via Rhetorical Roles. In: N. Aletras et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2022. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (Hybrid): Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 153–171. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.nllp-1.13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Poudyal, P. et al. (2020). ECHR: Legal Corpus for Argument Mining. In: E. Cabrio – S. Villata (eds.): Proceedings of the 7^th Workshop on Argument Mining. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 67–75. Accessible at: https://aclanthology.org/2020.argmining-1.8/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Šavelka, J., and Ashley, K. D. (2018). Segmenting U.S. Court Decisions into Functional and Issue Specific Parts. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-935-5-111.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Song, H., and Schwarz, N. (2010). If It’s Easy to Read, It’s Easy to Do, Pretty, Good, and True. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23(2), pp. 108–111.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Teruel, M. et al. (2018). Increasing Argument Annotation Reproducibility by Using Inter-Annotator Agreement to Improve Guidelines. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
de Vargas Feijó, D., and Moreira, V. P. (2018). RulingBR: A Summarization Dataset for Legal Texts. In: A. Villavicencio et al. (eds.): Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 255–264.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wagner, W., and Walker, W. (2019). Incomprehensible!: A Study of How Our Legal System Encourages Incomprehensibility, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It. Cambridge Core. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139051774.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yamada, H., Teufel, S., and Tokunaga, T. (2019). Building a Corpus of Legal Argumentation in Japanese Judgement Documents: Towards Structure-Based Summarisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(2), pp. 141–170. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09242-3.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Annotation of Rhetorical Roles and Syllogistic Relations in Czech Argumentative Legal and Administrative Texts

Abstract

Paradigm

My account