Abstract

AbstractCurrent formal dialectical models postulate normative rules that enable discussants to conduct dialogical interactions without committing fallacies. Though the rules for conducting a dialogue are supposed to apply to interactions between actual arguers, they are without exception theoretically motivated. This creates a gap between model and reality, because dialogue participants typically leave important content-related elements implicit. Therefore, analysts cannot readily relate normative rules to actual debates in ways that will be empirically confirmable. This paper details a new, data-driven method for describing discussants’ actual reply structures, wherein corpus studies serve to acknowledge the complexity of natural argumentation (itself understood as a function of context). Rather than refer exclusively to propositional content as an indicator of arguing pro/contra a given claim, the proposed approach to dialogue structure tracks the sequence of dialogical moves itself. This arguably improves the applicability of theoretical dialectical models to empirical data, and thus advances the study of dialogue systems.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2021-12-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Argumentation

Cites in this index (5)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Also cites 14 works outside this index ↓
  1. Bowden, K.K., Oraby, S., Misra, A., Wu, J., Lukin, S., and Walker, M., 2019. Data-driven dialogue systems for…
  2. Condon, S.L., and C.G. Cech. 1996. Functional comparisons of face-to-face and computer-mediated decision maki…
  3. Locher, M.A., and S.L. Graham. 2010. Introduction to interpersonal pragmatics. In Interpersonal pragmatics. B…
  4. Mackenzie, J. 1979. Question begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 117–133.
    Journal of Philosophical Logic  
  5. Parsons, S., P. McBurney, and M. Wooldridge. 2003. The mechanics of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Worksh…
  6. Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188.
    The Knowledge Engineering Review  
  7. Reed, C., and S. Wells. 2007. Dialogical argument as an interface to complex debates. IEEE Intelligent System…
  8. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts
  9. van Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical appr…
  10. Walton, D. 2003. The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1771–18024.
    Journal of Pragmatics  
  11. Walton, D. 2007. Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
  12. Wells, S., and C. Reed. 2012. A domain specific language for describing diverse systems of dialogue. Journal …
    Journal of Applied Logic  
  13. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1978. Arresting circles in formal dialogues. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7: 73–90.
    Journal of Philosophical Logic  
  14. Yaskorska, O., K. Budzyńska, and M. Kacprzak. 2013. Proving propositional tautologies in a natural dialogue. …
    Fundamenta Informaticae