While pretrained language models (PLMs) have been shown to possess a plethora of linguistic knowledge, the existing body of research has largely neglected extralinguistic knowledge, which is generally difficult to obtain by pretraining on text alone. Here, we contribute to closing this gap by examining geolinguistic knowledge, i.e., knowledge about geographic variation in language. We introduce geoadaptation , an intermediate training step that couples language modeling with geolocation prediction in a multi-task learning setup. We geoadapt four PLMs, covering language groups from three geographic areas, and evaluate them on five different tasks: fine-tuned (i.e., supervised) geolocation prediction, zero-shot (i.e., unsupervised) geolocation prediction, fine-tuned language identification, zero-shot language identification, and zero-shot prediction of dialect features. Geoadaptation is very successful at injecting geolinguistic knowledge into the PLMs: The geoadapted PLMs consistently outperform PLMs adapted using only language modeling (by especially wide margins on zero-shot prediction tasks), and we obtain new state-of-the-art results on two benchmarks for geolocation prediction and language identification. Furthermore, we show that the effectiveness of geoadaptation stems from its ability to geographically retrofit the representation space of the PLMs.

Despite extensive research efforts in recent years, computational argumentation (CA) remains one of the most challenging areas of natural language processing. The reason for this is the inherent complexity of the cognitive processes behind human argumentation, which integrate a plethora of different types of knowledge, ranging from topic-specific facts and common sense to rhetorical knowledge. The integration of knowledge from such a wide range in CA requires modeling capabilities far beyond many other natural language understanding tasks. Existing research on mining, assessing, reasoning over, and generating arguments largely acknowledges that much more knowledge is needed to accurately model argumentation computationally. However, a systematic overview of the types of knowledge introduced in existing CA models is missing, hindering targeted progress in the field. Adopting the operational definition of knowledge as any task-relevant normative information not provided as input, the survey paper at hand fills this gap by (1) proposing a taxonomy of types of knowledge required in CA tasks, (2) systematizing the large body of CA work according to the reliance on and exploitation of these knowledge types for the four main research areas in CA, and (3) outlining and discussing directions for future research efforts in CA.