Agendas, Relevance and Dialogic Ascent
- First Online:
- 52 Downloads
E. C. W. Krabbe characterizes a metadialogue as a dialogue about a dialogue, which in turn, is characterized as a ground level dialogue. Krabbe raises a number of interesting questions about this distinction, of which the most pressing is whether the difference between ground level and metadialogues can be drawn in a principled and suitably general way. In this note, I develop the idea that something counts as a metadialogue to the extent that it stands to its ground level counterpart in a relation of irrelevance. The irrelevance in question subsumes a triple of subconcepts: strategic relevance, agenda-relevance and irredundancy-relevance.
Keywordsagendas balloons dialogic accent fairness ground level dialogue infinite regress metadialogue loops postponements relevance scripts
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Anderson A. R., Belnap N. D. Jr. 1975 Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
- Demolombe R., Jones A. J. J. 1999 Sentences of the Kind ‹Sentence p is About Topic t’. In: H. J. Ohlbach, U. Reyle (eds) Logic, Language and Reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 115–133Google Scholar
- Gabbay D. M., Woods J. 2001b More on non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9:321–339Google Scholar
- Gabbay, D. M. and J. Woods: 2003, Agenda Relevance: A Study in Formal Pragmatics (Volume 1 of A Practical Logic of Cognitive Systems), North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Krabbe, E.: 2003, ‹Metadialogues’, in F. H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, C. A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 83–90Google Scholar
- Walton D. N. 1982 Topical Relevance in Argumentation. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Woods, J.: 2003 ‹Legal relevance’, under editorial reviewGoogle Scholar