Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handling Enthymemes in Time-Limited Persuasion Dialogs

  • Conference paper
Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6929))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper is a first attempt to define a framework to handle enthymeme in a time-limited persuasion dialog. The notion of incomplete argument is explicited and a protocol is proposed to regulate the utterances of a persuasion dialog with respect to the three criteria of consistency, non-redundancy and listening. This protocol allows the use of enthymemes concerning the support or conclusion of the argument, enables the agent to retract or re-specify an argument. The system is illustrated on a small example and some of its properties are outlined.

This work was funded by the ANR project LELIE on risk analysis and prevention (http://www.irit.fr/recherches/ILPL/lelie/accueil.html).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amgoud, L., Dupin de Saint Cyr, F.: Towards ACL semantics based on commitments and penalties. In: European Conf. on Artif. Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 235–239. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N.: Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR), pp. 409–417 (2002), Special session on Argument, Dialogue, Decision

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, MA, pp. 31–38 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Austin, J.: How to Do Things With Words, Cambridge (Mass.), 1962, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Paperback (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bench-Capon, T.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. of Logic and Computation 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence 128(1-2), 203–235 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Black, E., Hunter, A.: Using enthymemes in an inquiry dialogue system. In: Proc of the 7th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiag. Syst. (AAMAS 2008), pp. 437–444 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dunne, P., Bench-Capon, T.: Two party immediate response disputes: Properties and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence 149, 221–250 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F.: A first attempt to allow enthymemes in persuasion dialogs. In: DEXA International Workshop: Data, Logic and Inconsistency, DALI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gaudou, B., Herzig, A., Longin, D.: A Logical Framework for Grounding-based Dialogue Analysis. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 157(4), 117–137 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon, T.: The pleadings game. Artificial Intelligence and Law 2, 239–292 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamblin, C.: Fallacies. Methuen, London (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunter, A.: Real arguments are approximate arguments. In: Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 66–71. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Macagno, F., Walton, D.: Enthymemes, argumentation schemes, and topics. Logique et Analyse 205, 39–56 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Paglieri, F.: No more charity, please! enthymematic parsimony and the pitfall of benevolence. In: Dissensus and the search for common ground: Proc. of OSSA 2007, pp. 1–26 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Paglieri, F., Woods, J.: Enthymematic parsimony. Synthese 178, 461–501 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Parsons, S., McBurney, P.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. J. of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rotstein, N., Moguillansky, M., García, A., Simari, G.: A dynamic argumentation framework. In: COMMA, pp. 427–438 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schopenhauer, A.: The Art of Always Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Always_Being_Right , Orig. title: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten (Transl. by T. Saunders in 1896)

  20. Searle, J.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge (1969)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Thielscher, M.: A general game description language for incomplete information games. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 994–999 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thimm, M., Garcia, A., Kern-Isberner, G., Simari, G.: Using collaborations for distributed argumentation with defeasible logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 12th Int. Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2008), pp. 179–188 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Walton, D.: The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6, 361–379 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Walton, D., Reed, C.: Argumentation schemes and enthymemes. Synthese 145, 339–370 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, Toulouse, France

    Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr

Authors
  1. Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CRIL-CNRS, University of Artois, 62307, France

    Salem Benferhat

  2. Department of Mathematics, Towson University, 21252, Towson, MD, USA

    John Grant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

de Saint-Cyr, F.D. (2011). Handling Enthymemes in Time-Limited Persuasion Dialogs. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6929. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23962-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23963-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation