Can AI models capture natural language argumentation?

International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 19-32

  Amgoud, Leila ^a,b   Prade, Henri ^a,b,c  

^a IRIT   (France)

^b CNRS (The French National Center for Scientific Research)   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Natural language argumentation; Non monotonic reasoning

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION; NATURAL LANGUAGE ARGUMENTATION; NON-MONOTONIC REASONING; SQUARE-OF-OPPOSITION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84877896425     PISSN: 15573958     EISSN: 15573966     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jcini.2012070102     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Amgoud, L. Dimopoulos. Y., & Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'07) (pp. 963-970). ACM Press.
2. Amgoud, L., & Besnard, P. H. (2009). Bridging the gap between abstract argumentation systems and logic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM'09) (pp. 12-27).
3. Apothéloz, D. (1989). Esquisse d'un catalogue des formes de la contreargumentation. Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, 57, 69-86.
4. Apothéloz, D. (1993). The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(1), 23-38. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90068-Z
5. Apothéloz, D., Brandt, P., & Quiroz, G. (1992). Champ et effets de la négation argumentative: Contre-argumentation et mise en cause. Argumentation, 6, 99-113. doi:10.1007/BF00154261
6. Baroni, P., Caminada, M., & Giacomin, M. (2011). An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4), 365-410. doi:10.1017/S0269888911000166
7. Bench-Capon, T., & Dunne, P. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 619-641.
8. Besnard, P. H., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Black, E., & Hunter, A. (2012). A relevance-theoretic framework for constructing and deconstructing enthymemes. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22(1), 55-78. doi:10.1093/logcom/exp064
10. Blackburn, P. (1989). Logique de l'Argumentation. Saint-Laurent, Canada: Editions du Renouveau Pédagogique.
11. Cayrol, C., & Lagasquie, M. (2005). On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU' 2005) (pp. 378-389).
12. de Saint-Cyr, F. D. (2011). Handling enthymemes in time-limited persuasion dialogs. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (pp. 149-162).
13. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 77, 321-357. doi:10.1016/0004- 3702(94)00041-X
14. Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J., & Krause, P. (1993). Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'93) (pp. 114-121).
15. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.
16. Modgil, S., & Bench-Capon, T. (2011). Metalevel argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 21(6), 959-1003. doi:10.1093/logcom/exq054
17. Moretti, A. (2010). Argumentation theory and the geometry of opposition (abstract). In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA'10).
18. Parsons, T. (2008). The traditional square of opposition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition).
19. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press.
20. Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science, 11(3), 481-518. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog1104-4
21. Pollock, J. (1992). How to reason defeasibly. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 57, 1-42. doi:10.1016/0004- 3702(92)90103-5
22. Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009-1040. doi:10.1093/logcom/exi046
23. Quiroz, G., Apothéloz, D., & Brandt, P. (1992). How counter-argumentation works. In van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., & Willard, C. A. (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (pp. 172-177).
24. Rahwan, I., & Simari, G. (2009). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
25. Rescher, N. (1997). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
26. Salavastru, C. (2007). Logique, argumentation, interprétation. Paris, France: L'Harmattan.
27. Simari, G. R., & Loui, R. P. (1992). A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 53, 125-157. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(92)90069-A
28. Tarski, A. (1956). On some fundamental concepts of metamathematics. In Woodger, J. H. (Ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802034
31. Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2005). On the meta-logic of arguments. In Proceedings of the ArgMAS (pp. 42-56).