The impact of argumentation on artificial intelligence

Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for Frans H. Van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 287-299

  Walton, Douglas ^a   Godden, David M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINNIPEG   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925712385     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410614155     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
2. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: de Gruyter.
3. Bench- Capon, T. (1997). Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5, 249-261.
4. Bench-Capon, T. (2002). Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties with different values. Informal Logic, 22, 231-245.
5. Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150, 97-143.
6. Bex, F., & Prakken, H. (2004). Reinterpreting arguments in dialogue: An application to evidential reasoning. In T. F. Gordon (Ed.), Legal knowledge and information systems (pp. 119-130). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
7. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, II, 125-165.
8. Eemeren, F. H. van. (1994). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 3-8). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
9. Eemeren, F. H. van (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17, 144-158.
10. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.
11. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, I, 283-301.
12. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
13. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma- dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Gordon, T. F.(1996).Computational dialectics. In P. Hoschka (Ed.), Computers as assistants-A new generation of support systems (pp. 186-203).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ssociates. Also can be retrieved (May 1, 2005) from www.tfgordon.de/publications/Gordonl996a.pdf
15. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics.Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
16. Hitchcock, D., McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2001). A framework for deliberation dialogues. In H. V Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair & R. H. Johnson (Eds.), Argumentation and its Applications. Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor: OSSA.
17. Lodder, A. R. (2000). Book review of Gordon (1995). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8, 255-264.
18. Loui, R. P., & Gordon, T. F. (1994). Call for papers for 1994 AAAI Seattle workshop on computational dialectics. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/comectics.text
19. Norman, T.(2000).Symposium on argument and computation [unpublished conference report]. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~tnorman/sac/
20. Norman, T. J., Carbogim, D. V, Krabbe, E. C. W., & Walton, D. (2004). Argument and multi-agent systems. In C. Reed, & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 15-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
21. O’Driscoll, G. P. Jr., & Rizzo, M. J. (1985). The economics of time and ignorance. London: Routledge.
22. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
23. Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, & L. Moniz Pereria (Eds.), Proceedings of JELIA’2000, The 7th European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence, Springer lecture notes inAI(pp. 224-238). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
24. Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (2004). Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Reed, C., & Rowe, G. (2001). Araucaria. Software. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.copmputing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/
26. Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2005). Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumenation in multi-agent systems (pp. 19-30). Dordrecht: Springer.
27. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Singh, M. P. (1996). Multiagent systems as spheres of commitment. International conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS), Workshop on norms, obligations, and conventions. Kyoto, Japan. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers/mas/icmas-96-norms.pdf
29. Singh, M. P. (1997). Commitments among autonomous agents in information-rich environments. 8th European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, Ronneby, Sweden. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers/databases/maamaw-97.pdf
30. Singh, M. P. (1999). An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7, 97-113.
31. University of Utrecht (2005). Intelligent Systems Group, Institute for Information & Computing Sciences Homepage. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/cd/cd.html
32. Verheij, B. (1996). FAPR '96: The international conference on formal and applied practical reasoning [unpublished conference report]. Retrieved May 1, 2005, from http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications/fapr96report/
33. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34. Walton, D., & Godden, D. M. (forthcoming). Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution. Artificial Intelligence and Law.