Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 209–221

Agendas, Relevance and Dialogic Ascent

Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

agendas balloons dialogic accent fairness ground level dialogue infinite regress metadialogue loops postponements relevance scripts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson A. R., Belnap N. D. Jr. 1975 Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Gabbay D. M., Woods J. 2001a Non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Synthese 127:161–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gabbay D. M., Woods J. 2001b More on non-cooperation in dialogue logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 9:321–339Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Walton D. N. 1982 Topical Relevance in Argumentation. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Woods, J.: 2003 ‹Legal relevance’, under editorial reviewGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s CollegeStrand, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations