Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 182, Issue 3, pp 349–374 | Cite as

A dialogue system specification for explanation

Article

Abstract

This paper builds a dialectical system of explanation with speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, like requesting and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. A successful explanation has been achieved when there has been a transfer of understanding from the party giving the explanation to the party asking for it. The dialogue has an opening stage, an explanation stage and a closing stage. Whether a transfer of understanding has taken place is tested by a dialectical shift to an examination dialogue.

Keywords

Argumentation Formal dialogue system Artificial intelligence Examination dialogue Models of explanation Scripts MOPs Scientific explanation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aristotle: (1928) On sophistical refutations. Loeb classical library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M., McBurney P. (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bench-Capon T. J. M., Doutre S., Dunne P. E. (2007) Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bench-Capon T. J. M., Doutre S., Dunne P. E. (2008) Asking the right question: Forcing commitment in examination dialogues. In: Besnard P., Doutre S., Hunter A. (eds) Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  6. Bratman M., Israel D., Pollack M. (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4(3): 349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cawsey A. (1992) Explanation and interaction: The computer generation of explanatory dialogues. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Collingwood R. G. (1946) The idea of history. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Dray W. (1964) Philosophy of history. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. Dray W. (1995) History as re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood’s idea of history. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. Proceedings IJCAI-05 (pp. 1560–1561). Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  12. Finocchiaro M. (1980) Scientific discoveries as growth of understanding: The case of Newton’s gravitation. In: Nickles T. (eds) Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 235–255Google Scholar
  13. Friedman M. (1974) Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy LXXI: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon T. F., Walton D. (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I., Simari G. (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guthrie W. K. C. (1981) A history of Greek philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kass A., Leake D. (1987) Types of explanations. Technical Report ADA183253. U.S. Department of Commerce, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  17. Leake D. B. (1992) Evaluating explanations: A content theory. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore J. D. (1995) Participating in explanatory dialogues. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Moulin B., Irandoust H., Belanger M., Desbordes G. (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities. Artificial Intelligence Review 17: 169–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parsons S., Jennings N. R. (1997) Negotiation through argumentation: A preliminary report. In: Tokoro M. (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on multi-agents systems. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 267–274Google Scholar
  21. Pera M. (1994) The discoveries of science. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Prakken H. (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15: 1009–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prakken H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reed C. (2006) Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(1): 22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schank R. C. (1986) Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Schank R. C., Abelson R. P. (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. Schank R. C., Kass A., Riesbeck C. K. (1994) Inside case-based explanation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. Schank R. C., Riesback C. K. (1981) Inside computer understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlangen, D. (2004). Causes and strategies for requesting clarification in dialogue. In M. Strube & C. Sidner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue (pp. 136–143). East Stoudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/hlt-naacl2004/sigdial04/pdf/schlangen.pdf.
  30. Scriven M. (1972) The concept of comprehension: From semantics to software. In: Carroll J. B., Freedle R. O. (eds) Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. W. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, pp 31–39Google Scholar
  31. Scriven M. (2002) The limits of explication. Argumentation 16: 47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singh M. P. (1999) A semantics for speech acts. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 8: 47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snoeck Henkemans F. (1992) Analyzing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. SICSAT, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Trout J. D. (2002) Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 69(2): 212–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Unsworth L. (2001) Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school texts. International Journal of Science Education 23: 585–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verheij B. (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. von Wright G. H. (1971) Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagenaar W. A., van Koppen P. J., Crombag H. F. M. (1993) Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton D. (2003) The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1771–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walton D. (2006) Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 745–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walton, D. (2007a). Dialogical models of explanation. Explanation-aware computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop. Technical Report WS-07-06 (pp. 1–9). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  42. Walton D. (2007b) Clarification dialogue. Studies in communication sciences 7: 165–197Google Scholar
  43. Walton D., Krabbe E. C. W. (1995) Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations