Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 45–82 | Cite as

Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse

  • Mathilde JanierEmail author
  • Chris Reed
Article

Abstract

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions quicker and more efficient. For this, we need tools for close analysis of mediation discourse in order to explore the argumentative activity in depth, and ultimately get an accurate image of how dialogues unfold in this particular context. This paper therefore aims at laying the foundations of a theory of close analysis for discourse in dispute mediation. Theories provided by the literature serve as a basis for argumentative analyses of transcripts of mediation sessions in order to deliver a clear image of the argumentative structure. Analyses of the argumentative strategies in mediation discourse will allow for the development of a dialogue protocol that can be used to develop operational models which can be embodied in software to help make the mediation process easier and more effective.

Keywords

Argument analysis Mediation Discourse Inference Anchoring Theory 

References

  1. Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellucci, E., and J. Zeleznikow. 2005. Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: A case study of the Family-Winner system. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13: 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bex, F., J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. 2014. Generalising argument dialogue with the Dialogue Game Execution Platform. In Proceedings of COMMA 2014 Google Scholar
  4. Bichler, M., G. Kersten, and C. Weinhardt. 2003. Electronic negotiations: Foundations, systems and experiments—introduction to the special issue. Group Decision and Negotiation 12: 25–88.Google Scholar
  5. Blommaert, J., and C. Bulcaen. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, J. Kang, C. Reed, P. Saint Dizier, M. Stede, and O. Yaskorska. 2014a. Towards argument mining from dialogue. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 266, 185–196. Computational Models of Argument (COMMA14), IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, C. Reed, and P. Saint-Dizier. 2013. Towards extraction of dialogical arguments. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computational models of natural argument (CMNA13).Google Scholar
  8. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, C. Reed, P. Saint Dizier, M. Stede, and O. Yaskorska. 2014b. A model for processing illocutionary structures and argumentation in debates. In Proceedings of the 9th edition of the language resources and evaluation conference (LREC).Google Scholar
  9. Chesveñar, C., J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. 2006. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4): 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisen, J.B. 1998. Are we ready for mediation in cyberspace? Brigham Young University Law Review 1998(4): 1305–1358.Google Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure, vol. 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, M.A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Greatbatch, D., and R. Dingwall. 1997. Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review 62: 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greco Morasso, S. 2008. Argumentative and other communicative strategies of the mediation practice. PhD thesis, Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
  16. Greco Morasso, S. 2011. Argumentation in dispute mediation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammond, A.-M.G. 2003. How do you write “Yes”?: A study of the effectiveness of online dispute resolution. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(3): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffer, D.P. 1996. Decision analysis as a mediator’s tool. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1: 113–137.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobs, S. 2002. Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10): 1403–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict resolution quarterly 20(2): 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1992. Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6(2): 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janier, M., J. Lawrence, C. Reed. 2014. OVA\(+\): An argument analysis interface. In Computational models of argument (COMMA), vol. 266, 463–464. IOS Press.Google Scholar
  23. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2003. Metadialogues. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. Van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoek Henkemans, 83–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mackenzie, J.D. 1979. Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1): 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mann, W.C., and S.A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3): 243–281.Google Scholar
  26. Moffitt, M.L., and R.C. Bordone. 2012. The handbook of dispute resolution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Nadler, J. 2001. Electronically-mediated dispute resolution and e-commerce. Negotiation Journal 17(4): 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Keefe, D.J. 1977. Two concepts of arguments. The Journal of the American Forensic Association XIII(3): 121–128.Google Scholar
  29. Prakken, H. 2005. Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6): 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prakken, H. 2006. Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21(02): 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raines, S.S. 2005. Can online mediation be transformative? Tales from the front. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 22(4): 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stent, A. 2000. Rhetorical structure in dialog. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Natural language generation, vol. 14, 247–252. INLG’00.Google Scholar
  33. Tanaka, T., N. Maeda, D. Katagami, and K. Nitta. 2008. Characterized argument agent for training partner. In New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 377–389. Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Teitz, L.E. 2001. Providing legal services for the middle class in cyberspace: The promise and challenge of online dispute resolution. Fordham Law Review 70: 985–1016.Google Scholar
  35. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2003. The development of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Argumentation 17: 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton, D.N. 1996. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning, vol. 35. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  41. Yuan, Y., M. Head, and M. Du. 2003. The effects of multimedia communication on web-based negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation 12: 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations