Advertisement

An architecture for argumentative dialogue planning

  • Chris Reed
  • Derek Long
  • Maria Fox
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1085)

Abstract

Argument represents an opportunity for a system to convince a possibly sceptical or resistant audience of the veracity of its own beliefs. This ability is a vital component of rich communication, facilitating explanation, instruction, cooperation and conflict resolution. In this paper, a proposal is presented for the architecture of a system capable of constructing arguments. The design of the architecture has made use of the wealth of naturally occurring argument, which, unlike much natural language, is particularly suited to analysis due to its clear aims and structure. The proposed framework is based upon a core hierarchical planner conceptually split into four levels of processing, the highest being responsible for abstract, intentional and pragmatic guidance, and the lowest handling realisation into natural language. The higher levels will have control over not just the logical form of the argument, but also over matters of style and rhetoric, in order to produce as cogent and convincing an argument as possible.

Topics

Argumentation theory Fallacies and their role in practical reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackermann, R.J. “Belief and Knowledge”, Anchor, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  2. Ambros-Ingerson, J.A., Steel, S. “Integrated Planning, Execution and Monitoring”, in Readings in Planning, (1990) 735–740.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, H. “Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres”, Charles Daly, London (1838)Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J. “Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication” in Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E., (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Boston (1990) 221–255Google Scholar
  5. Fox, M., Long., D. P. “Hierarchical Planning using Abstraction”, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications (1995)Google Scholar
  6. Freese, J.H. (trans), Aristotle “The Art of Rhetoric”, Heinmann, London (1926)Google Scholar
  7. Galliers, J.R. “Autonomous belief revision and communication” in Gardenfors, P., (ed), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992) 220–246Google Scholar
  8. Gardenfors, P. “Belief Revision: An Introduction” in Gardenfors, P., (eds), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992) 1–28Google Scholar
  9. Grosz, B., Sidner, C.L “Plans for Discourse” in Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M.E., (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Boston (1990) 418–444Google Scholar
  10. Hovy, E. H. “Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations”, Artificial Intelligence 63, (1993) 341–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, R.M. “A Logic Book”, Wadsworth, Belmont CA (1992)Google Scholar
  12. Levin, J.A& Moore, J.A. “Dialogue Games: Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction”, Cognitive Science 1, (1977) 395–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Long, D., Garigliano, R. “Reasoning by Analogy and Causality: A Model and Application”, Ellis Horwood (1994)Google Scholar
  14. McCoy, K.F. “Contextual Effects on Responses to Misconceptions”, in Kempen, G., (ed), Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, Kluwer (1986) 43–54Google Scholar
  15. Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A. “Rhetorical structure theory: description and construction of text structures” in Kempen, G., (ed), Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, Kluwer (1986) 279–300Google Scholar
  16. Moore, J.D., Pollack, M.E. “A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-Level Discourse Analysis”, Computational Linguistics 18 (4), (1992) 537–544Google Scholar
  17. Moore, J.D., Swartout, W.R. “A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User's Feedback into Account”, in Paris, C.L., Swartout, W.R. & Mann, W.C. (eds), Natural Language Generation in AI & Computational Linguistics, Kluwer, (1991) 3–48Google Scholar
  18. Sacerdoti, E.D. “A Structure for Plans and Behaviour”, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1977)Google Scholar
  19. Sandell, R. “Linguistic Style and Persuasion”, Academic Press, London (1977)Google Scholar
  20. Smith, M.H., Garigliano, R., Morgan, R.C. “Generation in the LOLITA system: An engineering approach” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (INLG'94), Kennebunkport, Maine (1994)Google Scholar
  21. Vreeswijk, G. “IACAS: an implementation of Chisolm's Principles of Knowledge”, Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, Witteveen, C. et al. (eds) (1995) 225–234Google Scholar
  22. Whately, R. “Logic”, Richard Griffin, London (1855)Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, B.A. “The Anatomy of Argument”, University Press of America, Washington (1980)Google Scholar
  24. Young, R.M., Moore, J.D. “DPOCL: A principled approach to discourse planning” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, Maine, (1994) 13–20Google Scholar
  25. Zlotkin, G. & Rosenchein, J.S. “Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Non-Cooperative Domains”, in Proceedings of the National Conference on AI (AAAI'90), (1990) 100–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Reed
    • 1
  • Derek Long
    • 2
  • Maria Fox
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondon
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceDurham UniversityDurham

Personalised recommendations