, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 3–17 | Cite as

Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention

Original Article


This paper has three dimensions, historical, theoretical and social. The historical dimension is to show how the Ciceronian system of dialectical argumentation served as a precursor to computational models of argumentation schemes such as Araucaria and Carneades. The theoretical dimension is to show concretely how these argumentation schemes reveal the interdependency of rhetoric and logic, and so the interdependency of the normative with the empirical. It does this by identifying points of disagreement in a dialectical format through using argumentation schemes and critical questions. The social dimension is to show how the Ciceronian dialectical viewpoint integrates with the use of computational tools that can be used to support the principle of reason-based deliberation and facilitate deliberative democracy.


Argumentation schemes Informal logic Ciceronian rhetoric Carneades model Deliberative democracy Fallacies Persuasion 


  1. Aristotle (1928) On Sophistical Refutations (trans. E. S. Forster). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1937) The Art of Rhetoric (trans. John Henry Freese). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle (1939) Topics (trans. E. S. Forster). Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson K, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synth 152:157–206CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth EM, Krabbe ECW (1982) From Axiom to Dialogue. De Gruyter, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (2008) ‘Preface’, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. Besnard P, Doutre S, Hunter A (eds) Amsterdam: IOS Press, p 5Google Scholar
  7. Cicero MT (1949) De Inventione. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Dascal M, Gross AG (1999) The marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric. Philos Rhetor 32:107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrell TB (1993) Norms of Rhetorical Culture. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon TF (1995) The pleadings game: an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon TF (1996) Computational dialectics. Computers as assistants—a new generation of support systems. Hoschka P (eds), Erlbaum, pp 186–203Google Scholar
  12. Gordon TF, Richter G (2002) Discourse support systems for deliberative democracy. eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV). Traunmüller R, Lenk K (eds) Springer, Aix-en-Provence, pp 248–255Google Scholar
  13. Gordon TF, Walton D (2006) The Carneades argumentation framework, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006. Dunne PE, Bench-Capon TJM (eds) IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 195–207Google Scholar
  14. Gordon TF, Walton D (2010) A Carneades Reconstruction of Popov v Hayashi. Knowledge Engineering Review (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. Gordon TF, Prakken H, Walton D (2007) The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artif Intell 171:875–896CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D, Harman G (eds) The logic of grammar. Dickenson, Encino, pp 64–75Google Scholar
  17. Groarke L (1990) Greek skepticism. McGill-Queen’s University Press, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamblin CL (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamblin CL (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37:130–155CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen H, Pinto R (1995) Fallacies. Penn State Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hintikka J (1979) Information-seeking dialogues: a model. Erkenntnis 38:355–368MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Hohmann H (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic: some historical and legal perspectives. Argumentation 14:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs S (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson RH (2000) Manifest rationality: a pragmatic theory of argument. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy G (1963) The art of Persuasion in Greece. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Kestler JL (1982) Questioning techniques and tactics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kienpointner M (1993) The empirical relevance of Perelman’s new rhetoric. Argumentation 7:419–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krabbe ECW (2000) Meeting in the House of Callias: rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leff M (1983) The topics of argumentative invention in latin rhetorical theory from Cicero to Beothius. Rhetorica 1:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leff M (1993) The uses of Aristotle’s rhetoric in contemporary American Scholarship. Argumentation 7:313–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leff M (1996) Commonplaces and argumentation in Cicero and Quintilian. Argumentation 10:445–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leff M (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mackenzie J (1981) The dialectics of logic. Logique et Analyse 94:159–177MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitsis, P (1999) Cicero, Marcus Tullius, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp 143–144Google Scholar
  35. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  36. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artif Intell Law 4:331–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reed C, Norman TJ (2003) Argumentation machines: new frontiers in argument and computation. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Reed C, Rowe G (2005) Araucaria, Version 3.1. Available free at
  39. Rescher N (1977) Dialectics. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson R (1962) Plato’s earlier dialectic. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren B (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 5(1):43–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorsrud H (2002) Cicero on His Academic Predecessors: the Fallibilism of Arcesilaus and Carneades. J Hist Philos 40:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tindale CW (1999) Acts of arguing: a rhetorical model of argument. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  44. van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P (2000) Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation 14:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Henkemans S, Francisca et al. (1996) Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  46. Verheij B (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11:167–195Google Scholar
  47. Walton D (1989) Question-reply argumentation. Greenwood Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Walton D (1997) Appeal to expert opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  49. Walton D (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  50. Walton D, Gordon TF (2005) Critical questions in computational models of legal argument, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (eds) Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 103–111Google Scholar
  51. Walton D, Krabbe EC (1995) Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  52. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Whately R (1863) Elements of rhetoric, 7th edn. Parker Son and Bourn, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR)University of WindsorWindsorUSA

Personalised recommendations