Abstract
We begin this chapter about argumentation, by considering types of arguments, and contrast Wigmore Charts to Toulmin’s structure of argument. We develop two examples in detail, and then turn to Pollock’s inference graphs and degrees of justification. We then discuss beliefs. From Walton’s approach to commitment vs. belief and to argument schemes, we turn to Bench-Capon and Atkinson’s approach to critical questions concerning a story of alleged crime. We consider arguments in PERSUADER, in Carneades, and in Stevie. We survey computer tools for argumentation, and computational models of argumentation, especially as far as they relate to legal argument. We distinguish between argumentation for dialectical situations, vs. argumentation for structuring knowledge non-dialectically: a section by Stranieri, Zeleznikow, and Yearwood discusses an integration of those two uses of argumentation in a legal context, in the Generic Actual Argument Model (GAAM), also considering a few applications of the latter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Unlike in the age of torture.
- 2.
“Nonmonotonic reasoning, because conclusions must sometimes be reconsidered, is called defeasible; that is, new information may sometimes invalidate previous results. Representation and search procedures that keep track of the reasoning steps of a logic system are called truth maintenance systems or TMS. In defeasible reasoning, the TMS preserves the consistency of the knowledge base, keeping track of conclusions that might later need be questioned” (Luger & Stubblefield, 1998, p. 270).
- 3.
An example of an inference scheme is the statistical syllogism (ibid.).
- 4.
Modelling suspicion in such a society of agents that deception may occur in it (de Rosis, Castelfranchi, & Carofiglio, 2000; Carofiglio & de Rosis, 2001a). Sergot (2005) was concerned with modelling unreliable and untrustworthy agent behaviour. Lying and deception from the viewpoint of forensic psychology (see fn. 9 in Chapter 1) are the theme of Vrij (2000 [revised 2008], 2001, 2005), of Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, and Bull (2004), Vrij, Mann, Fisher, Leal, and Milne (2008), of Granhag and Strömwall (2004), and of de Cataldo Neuburger and Gulotta (1996); cf. Castelfranchi and Poggi (1998), whose perspective on lying is that of cognitive science. Also see Leach, Talwar, Lee, Bala, and Lindsay (2004), DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, and Charlton (2003), Vrij and Semin (1996), Strömwall and Granhag (2003a, 2003b, 2007), Strömwall, Hartwig, and Granhag (2006), Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, and Vrij (2005), Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, and Doering (2010), Mann, Vrij, and Bull (2004), Porter, Woodworth, Earle, Drugge, and Boaer (2003), Zuckerman and Driver (1985), Zuckerman, DePaulo, and Rosenthal (1981), and Burgoon and Buller (1994). Earlier work by Bella DePaulo – the originator of the Emotional/Motivational approaches to deception – includes, e.g., DePaulo and Kashy (1998), DePaulo and Pfeifer (1986), DePaulo, Lanier, and Davis (1983), DePaulo, Stone, and Lassiter (1984), DePaulo, Kirkendol, Tang, and O’Brien (1988), DePaulo, LeMay, and Epstein (1991).
“In contrast to guilty suspects, innocent suspects approach the interview less concerned with strategic information management and instead seem to focus on providing a complete and unedited account as a way to prove their innocence” (Hartwig et al., 2010, p. 11). Hartwig et al. (2010) “mapp[ed] the reasoning of guilty and innocent mock suspects who deny a transgression. Based on previous research, we proposed that suspects will engage in two major forms of regulation: impression management, which requires the purposeful control of nonverbal and demeanor cues; and information management which involves the regulation and manipulation of speech content to provide a statement of denial. We predicted that truth tellers and liars would both be engaged in impression management, but that that they would differ in the extent to which they will engage in information management. The results supported this prediction” (ibid., from the abstract).
Eve Sweetser (1987) is concerned with the definition and the semantic prototype of “lie”. Also Raskin (1987, 1993) is concerned with the semantics of lying. One may be influenced into sincerely recollecting something untrue. McCornack et al. (1992) applied information manipulation theory to find out when the alteration of information is viewed as deception. A team of psychologists, Gabbert, Memon, and Wright (2006), discussed the effects of socially encountered misinformation, which may be because of memory conformity: witnesses influenced each other by discussing what they recollected (the main title of their paper was “Say it to my face”).
Several works by Ekman (1985, 1996, 1997a, 1997b) are psychological studies of lying; cf., e.g., Ekman and O’Sullivan (2006). Several of Ekman’s papers can be downloaded from his website, at http://www.paulekman.com/downloadablearticles.html Tsiamyrtzis, Dowdall, Shastri, Pavlidis, and Frank (2005) discussed the imaging of facial physiology for the detection of deceit. Memon, Vrij, and Bull (1998, revised 2003) is a very important book about methods for ascertaining the truth and detecting lies in police investigations, and about the flaws of such methods. Also see Frank and Ekman’s (2003) Nonverbal Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Trankell (1972) is concerned with methods for analysing and assessing how reliable witness statements are. How liars attempt to convince is the subject of Colwell, et al. (2006), who researched strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth tellers. Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Rachel, and Colwell (2007) discussed vividness and spontaneity of statement detail characteristics as predictors of witness credibility.
One area of detecting deception, in psychology, is the assessment of feigned cognitive impairment (Boone, 2007), a kind of deception which is also known by the names malingered neurocognitive dysfunction, or noncredible cognitive performance. There are kinds of behaviour that are ascribed to malingering actors and probable malingerers (ibid.). In particular, malingering has to be assessed by forensic psychiatrists in criminal forensic neuropsychological settings: a criminal offender may simulate insanity or, at any rate, mental incompetence in the specific context of a given episode, in order to exonerate him- or herself from a charge. Such simulation involves symptom fabrication. The assessment of the mental state at the time of the offence is the task of forensic psychiatrists (Denney & Sullivan, 2008). Another area for assessment is noncredible competence on the part of witnesses who claim a role as forensic experts (Morgan, 2008); dubious experts may actually believe they are experts.
In France, Guy Durandin has researched lies and untruthful communication from a psychological viewpoint. His main work on the subject is the book Durandin (1972a). A slimmer volume, Durandin (1977), discusses why people find it difficult to tell lies. Yet another book, Durandin (1982), is concerned with lies in propaganda and advertisement. Advertisement he considers ideology, in Durandin (1972b). Durandin (1978) is an article on the manipulation of opinion. Durandin (1993) is a book on information and disinformation. Psychological warfare is the subject of the books by Daugherty and Janowitz (1958), Mégret (1956), and Louis (1987).
For the computer modelling of trust and deception in a society of agents, see, e.g., Castelfranchi and Tan (2002). Argumentation in deceptive communication is treated in Carofiglio, de Rosis, and Grassano (2001), Carofiglio and de Rosis (2001b). Floriana Grasso (2002a) discusses fairness and deception in rhetorical dialogues; Grasso (2002b) is more generally concerned with computational rhetoric. Concerning the modelling and evaluating trust in a public key infrastructure, within the area of computers and security, see Basden, Ball, and Chadwick (2001), Chadwick and Basden (2001), Ball, Chadwick, and Basden (2003), Chadwick, Basden, Evans, and Young (1998). Betrayal within a narrative context was treated computationally (in the BRUTUS story-generating program) by Bringsjord and Ferrucci (2000). A logic representation for a character betraying another one was incorporated in the AURANGZEB model (Nissan, 2007b).
- 5.
- 6.
Cf. in criminology: “The rational choice perspective (Clarke & Felson, 1993) states that committing a crime is a conscious process by the offender to fulfil his or her commonplace needs, such as money, sex, and excitement”, in the words of Adderley and Musgrove (2003a, p. 184), who applied “data mining techniques, principally the multi-layer perceptron, radial basis function, and self-organising map, to the recognition of burglary offenses committed by a network of offenders” (ibid., p. 179). Moreover: “Routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1992; Clarke & Felson, 1993) requires that there be a minimum of three elements for a crime to occur: a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a suitable guardian. Offenders do not offend twenty-four hours a day committing crime. They have recognizable lives and activities, for example, go to work, support a football team, and regularly drink in a public house. They have an awareness space in which they feel comfortable, which revolves around where they live, work, socialize and the travel infrastructure that connects those places” (Adderley & Musgrove, 2003a, p. 183).
- 7.
Ad hominem arguments, i.e., such arguments that attack the person claiming the truth of a proposition in order to attack that proposition, are the subject of Walton (1998b).
- 8.
For audiences in argumentation frameworks, see Bench-Capon, Doutre, and Dunne (2007).
- 9.
The acceptability of arguments is the subject of Dung (1995), the paper that introduced argumentation frameworks.
- 10.
The goal-trees (goal hierarchies) of both parties in PERSUADER are somewhat reminiscent of the goal-trees in Jaime Carbonell’s POLITICS. Realising the hierarchy of goals, or their relative importance, is essential, as shown by Jaime Carbonell (1978, 1979, 1981) in his POLITICS system. Carbonell related about a bug which earlier on in his project had caused the programme – when reasoning about the perception of the imminent threat of the Soviet Union invading Czechoslovakia (in 1968) requiring the American president to intervene at a time when the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had recently soured (because of allegations about spying) so that the influence of the President on Brezhnev could be expected to be less effective concerning the Czechoslovak crisis – to wrongly infer that the President of the United States should congratulate Brezhnev, as this is what people are supposed to do when they need to improve their relations. The achievement of a lesser goal was being suggested, with a plan that would harm a more important goal. This problem was fixed. Other AI tools known from the research literature have been reasoning about international politics. ABDUL/ILANA was an AI programme that used to simulate the generation of adversary arguments on an international conflict (Flowers, McGuire, & Birnbaum 1982); such arguments are intended to persuade a third party, but not one’s opponents.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Cf. van Gelder and Rizzo (2001).
- 15.
A tree is such a graph, that any two nodes are connected by exactly one path.
- 16.
In 2007, the journal Law, Probability and Risk published a special issue (Tillers, 2007) whose title is Graphic and Visual Representations of Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings.
- 17.
Araucaria is available for free at http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria
- 18.
“Traditional mathematical logic is monotonic: It begins with a set of axioms, assumed to be true, and infers their consequences. If we add new information to this system, it may cause the set of true statements to increase. Adding knowledge will never make the set of true statements decrease. This monotonic property leads to problems when we attempt to model reasoning based on beliefs and assumptions. In reasoning with uncertainty, humans draw conclusions based on their current set of beliefs and assumptions. In reasoning with uncertainty, humans draw conclusions based on their current set of beliefs; however, unlike mathematical axioms, these beliefs, along with their consequences, may change as more information becomes available. Nonmonotonic reasoning addresses the problem of changing belief. A nonmonotonic reasoning system handles uncertainty by making the most reasonable assumptions in light of uncertain information. It then proceeds with its reasoning as if these assumptions were true. At a later time, a belief may change, necessitating a reexamination of any conclusions derived from that belief” (Luger & Stubblefield, 1998, p. 269). See, e.g., Antoniou (1997).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
See as well, e.g., Dix, Parsons, Prakken, and Simari (2009), Prakken (2008a, 2008b, 2005, 2004, 2000), Bex and Prakken (2004), Bex, Prakken, Reed, and Walton (2003), Bex, et al. (2007), Bex, van Koppen, and Prakken (2010), Prakken, Reed, and Walton (2004), Bench-Capon (1997), Bench-Capon, Coenen, and Leng (2000), Vreeswijk and Prakken (2000), Amgoud, Caminada, Cayrol, Doutre, and Lagasquie-Schiex et al. (2004), McBurney and Prakken (2004), Caminada, Doutre, Modgil, Prakken, and Vreeswijk (2004), Bench-Capon, Freeman, Hohmann, and Prakken (2003), as well as Allen, Bench-Capon, and Staniford (2000), Loui and Norman (1995), Sartor (1994), Prakken and Sartor (1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1998), Freeman and Farley (1996), Rissland, Skalak, and Friedman (1996), Skalak and Rissland (1992), Zeleznikow and Stranieri (1998), Stranieri and Zeleznikow (2001b), Hunter, Tyree, and Zeleznikow (1993), Zeleznikow (2002a), Prakken (2002), Prakken and Vreeswijk (2002).
- 23.
For studies of argumentation, also see Verheij (2000, 2002). In particular, refer to Alexy’s (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The approach of Walton (1996a, 1996b, 1998a) eventually evolved into Gordon and Walton (2006), which describes a formal model implemented in Carneades. By Douglas Walton, also see e.g. his books Legal Argumentation and Evidence (Walton, 2002), and Abductive Reasoning (Walton, 2004). Bourcier (1995) adopts a semantic approach to argumentation. Van-Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Kruiger (1987) approach argumentation theory from the viewpoint of pragmatics and discourse analysis. The interface of argumentation with pragmatics is relevant also for the handbook entry Van Eemeren, and Grootendorst (1995). Also see Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoek Henkemans (1996).
- 24.
Distinguish between the examination or cross-examination in court of witnesses, including expert witnesses if any, and the interrogation of suspects on the part of the police. Seidmann and Stein (2000) developed a game-theoretic analysis which appears to show that a suspect’s right to silence helps the innocent.
- 25.
Of course, there has been much research, in computational models of argumentation (the subject of the present Chapter 3), into adversary argumentation: litigants in the courtroom try to persuade not each other, but the adjudicator. Moreover, they may prevaricate, in order to avoid an undesirable outcome. Dunne’s (2003) ‘Prevarication in Dispute Protocols’ resorted to Dung’s (1995) argumentation frameworks – in which an argument is admissible with respect to a set of arguments S if all of its attackers are attacked by some argument in S, and no argument in S attacks an argument in S – in order to “present various settings in which the use of ‘legitimate delay’ can be rigorously modeled, formulate some natural decision questions respecting the existence and utility of ‘prevaricatory tactics’, and, finally, illustrate within a greatly simplified schema, how carefully-chosen devices may greatly increase the length of an apparently ‘straightforward’ dispute” (Dunne, 2003, p. 12). Lengthening the dispute avoiding it reaching a conclusion is a kind of tactics in noncooperative argumentation. Dunne (2003) was concerned “one aspect of legal argument that appears to have been largely neglected in existing work concerning agent discourse protocols – particularly so in the arenas of persuasion and dispute resolution – the use of legitimate procedural devices to defer ‘undesirable’ conclusions being finalised and the deployment of such techniques in seeking to have a decision over-ruled. Motivating our study is the contention that individual agents within an ‘agent society’ could (be programmed to) act in a ‘non-cooperative’ manner: thus, contesting policies/decisions accepted by other agents in the ‘society’ in order to improve some national ‘individual’ utility.” (ibid.).
- 26.
Atkinson and Greenwood are the same person.
- 27.
Multiagent systems are the subject of Section 6.1.6 in this book.
- 28.
It is not merely an argumentative dialogue, in the courtroom: lawyers are not trying to persuade the other party, or the witness they are cross-examining. Rather, they are trying to persuade the adjudicator. Also consider the notion of ideal audience in legal argument, which is the subject of a book by George Christie (2000).
- 29.
Prakken’s relevant papers include: Prakken (2001), Prakken and Renooij (2001), Prakken et al. (2003), Bex et al. (2003), and so forth. His publications are accessible online at http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/henry/publications.html from which site they can be downloaded.
- 30.
- 31.
What is more, when reading that paper I was worried about stereotyping of perpetrators.
- 32.
A document about that particular case study can be found on the Web at http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/SB-LOGGER_CASESTUDY.tar.gz whereas a demo of Slate as applied to the Philadelphia bombing can be found at this other address: http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/research/rair/slate/visitors/PhiladelphiaBombing.wmv at the website of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY.
- 33.
Figure 3.11.2.1 represents the basic template for the knowledge representation we call a generic argument. A generic argument is an instantiation of the template that models a group of arguments. The generic argument includes: (a) a variable-value representation of the claim with a certainty slot; (b) a variable-value representation of the data items (with certainty slots) as the grounds on which such claims are made; (c) reasons for relevance of the data items; (d) inference procedures that may be used to infer a claim value from data values; (e) reasons for the appropriateness of the inference procedure.
The idea is that the generic argument sets up a template for arguments that allows the representation of the claim and the grounds for the claim. The claim of a generic argument is a predicate with an unspecified value (which can be chosen from a set when an actual argument is being made). Each data item is also a predicate with an unspecified value which can be taken from a specified set of values. The connection between the data variables and the claim variable is called an inference procedure. An inference procedure is a relation between the data space and the claim space.
- 34.
- 35.
Neural networks are the subject of http://Section 6.1.14 in this book.
- 36.
Fuzzy logic is the subject of http://Section 6.1.15 in this book.
- 37.
- 38.
In the project for assisting prospective tourists, the generic argument structure forms the basis for both the TOURIST agent and the TOUR advisor agent. The TOURIST agent currently interacts with a human tourist agent via text in a notepad interface which is parsed. This was developed into a dialogue interface. The shell permits the construction of both agents and the simple trusted negotiation mechanism is being implemented. More complex interactions were also studied.
- 39.
There was a preliminary circulation draft already in 1984.
References
Adderley, R., & Musgrove, P. (2003a). Modus operandi modeling of group offending: A case study. Section 6.12 In J. Mena (Ed.), Investigative data mining for security and criminal detection (pp. 179–195). Amsterdam & Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann (of Elsevier).
Anderson, T. J. (1999a). The Netherlands criminal justice system: An audit model of decision-making. Chapter 4 In M. Malsch & J. F. Nijboer (Eds.), Complex cases: Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system (pp. 47–67). (Series: Criminal Sciences). Amsterdam: THELA THESIS.
Antoniou, G. (1997). Nonmonotonic reasoning with incomplete and changing information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Arthaber, A. (1929). Dizionario comparato di proverbi e modi proverbiali in sette lingue: italiana, latina, francese, spagnola, tedesca, inglese, greca antica. Milan: Hoepli (repr. 1972; curr. repr. 1991).
Ashley, K. (1991). Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (Bradford Books).
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005a). Generating intentions through argumentation. In F. Dignum, V. Dignum, S. Koenig, S. Kraus, & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands (pp. 1261–1262). New York: ACM Press.
Audi, R. (1994). Dispositional beliefs and dispositions to believe. Noûs, 28(4), 419–434.
Aumann, R. J. (1987). Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica, 55, 1–19.
Aune, B. (1975). Vendler on knowledge and belief. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 391–399). (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Avery, J., Yearwood, J., & Stranieri, A. (2001). An argumentation based multi-agent system for eTourism dialogue. In A. Abraham & M. Köppen (Eds.), Hybrid information systems: Proceedings of the first international workshop on Hybrid Intelligent Systems (HIS 2001), Adelaide, Australia, December 11–12, 2001 (pp. 497–512). Advances in Soft Computing series. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag (of Springer-Verlag).
Ball, E., Chadwick, D. W., & Basden, A. (2003). The implementation of a system for evaluating trust in a PKI environment. In O. Petrovic, M. Ksela, M. Fallebblock, & C. Kittl (Eds.), Trust in the network economy (pp. 263–279). Berlin: Springer.
Ball, W. J. (1994). Using Virgil to analyse public policy arguments: A system based on Toulmin’s informal logic. Social Science Computer Review, 12(1), 26–37.
Ballim, A., & Wilks, Y. (1991). Artificial believers: The ascription of belief. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ballim, A., By, T., Wilks, Y., & Liske, C. (2001). Modelling agent attitudes in legal reasoning. Computing and Informatics, 20(6), 581–624.
Ballim, A., Wilks, Y., & Barnden, J. (1990). Belief ascription, metaphor, and intensional identification. Chapter 4 In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 91–131). London: Routledge, with a consolidated bibliography on pp. 558–581.
Barnden, J. A. (2001). Uncertain reasoning about agents’ beliefs and reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9(2/3), 115–152.
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. With open peer commentary and the author’s response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(1), 1–42.
Basden, A., Ball, E., & Chadwick, D. W. (2001). Knowledge issues raised in modelling trust in a public key infrastructure. Expert Systems, 18(5), 233–249.
Bayles, M. D. (1990). Procedural justice: Allocating to individuals. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1997). Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5, 249–261.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1998). Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game. In J. C. Hage, T. Bench-Capon, A. Koers, C. de Vey Mestdagh, & C. Grutters (Eds.), Jurix 1998: Foundation for legal knowledge based systems (pp. 5–20). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Gerard Noodt Institut.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2002). Agreeing to differ: Modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic, 22(3), 231–245.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003a). Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11(4), 271–287.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2003b). Persuasion in practical argument using value based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(3), 429–448. http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~tbc/publications/jcl03.pdf
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Doutre, S., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence, 171(1), 42–71.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2005). Argumentation in AI and law: Editors’ introduction. (Special issue.) Artificial Intelligence and Law, 13, 1–8.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., & Dunne, P. E. (2007). Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 619–641.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Freeman, J. B., Hohmann, H., & Prakken, H. (2003). Computational models, argtumentation theories and legal practice. In C. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 85–120). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Geldard, T., & Leng, P.H. (2000). A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 8, 233–254.
Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Lowes, D., & McEnery, A. M. (1991). Argument-based explanation of logic programs. Knowledge Based Systems, 4(3), 177–183.
Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bex, F., Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 17(2), 79–99. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/florisbex/Papers/AILaw09.pdf
Bex, F. J., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. N. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12, 125–165. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/florisbex/Papers/AILaw03.pdf
Binmore, K. (1985). Modelling rational players, Part 1 (ICERD Discussion Paper). London: London School of Economics.
Black, H. C. (1990). Black’s law dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 93(1/2), 63–101.
Boone, K. B. (Ed.). (2007). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment: A neuropsychological perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Brandenburger, A., & Dekel, E. (1987). Rationalizability and correlated equilibria. Econometrica, 55, 1391–1402.
Branting, K. L. (1994). A computational model of ratio decidendi. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 1–31.
Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brewka, G., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2003). Special issue on computational dialectics: An Introduction. (Special issue.) Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 317–318.
Bringsjord, S., & Ferrucci, D. A. (2000). Artificial intelligence and literary creativity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [On the BRUTUS project.]
Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: IV. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 155–184.
Carbogim, D., Robertson, D., & Lee, J. (2000). Argument-based applications to knowledge engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(2), 119–149.
Carbonell, J. (1979). Subjective understanding: Computer models of belief systems. Ph.D. thesis, Technical Report YALE/DCS/tr150. Computer Science Department, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Carbonell, J. (1981). POLITICS; Micro POLITICS. Chapters 11 and 12 In R. G. Schank & C. K. Riesbeck (Eds.), Inside computer understanding: Five programs plus miniatures (pp. 259–307 and 308–317). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carbonell, J. G., Jr. (1978). POLITICS: Automated ideological reasoning. Cognitive Science, 2(1), 27–51.
Carofiglio, V., & de Rosis, F. (2001a). Ascribing and weighting beliefs in deceptive information exchanges. In M. Bauer, P. J. Gmytrasiewicz, & J. Vassileva (Eds.), User modeling 2001 (pp. 222–224). (Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2109). Berlin: Springer.
Carr, C. S. (2003). Using computer supported argument visualization to teach legal argumentation. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 75–96). London: Springer.
Castelfranchi, C., & Poggi, I. (1998). Bugie, finzioni e sotterfugi. Florence: Carocci.
Castelfranchi, C., & Tan, Y. (2002). Trust and deception in virtual societies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Chadwick, D. W., & Basden, A. (2001). Evaluating trust in a public key certification authority. Computers and Security, 20(7), 592–611.
Christie, G. C. (1986). An essay on discretion. Duke Law Journal, 1986(5), 747–778. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=faculty_scholarship&seiredir=1#search=""Duke+law+journal"+Christie+"an+essay+on+discretion""
Christie, G. C. (2000). The notion of an ideal audience in legal argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Also in French, L’Auditoire universel dans l’argumentation juridique (G. Haarscher, Trans.). Belgium: E. Bruylant, 2005.
Clark, P. (1991). A model of argumentation and its application in a cooperative expert system. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Turing Institute, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.
Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Introduction: Criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice. (Advances in Criminological Theory, 5.) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Cohen, P. (1985). Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: An artificial intelligence approach. London: Pitman.
Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Woods, D., & Yaeger, H. (2006). Strategies of impression management among deceivers and truth tellers: How liars attempt to convince. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24(2), 31–38.
Colwell, K., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Memon, A., Rachel, A., & Colwell, L. (2007). Vividness and spontaneity of statement detail characteristics as predictors of witness credibility. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 25, 5–30.
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303–331.
Daugherty, W. E., & Janowitz, M. (1958). A psychological warfare casebook. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, for Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University. Now available from Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International (UMI) books on demand.
de Cataldo Neuburger, L., & Gulotta, G. (1996). Trattato della menzogna e dell’inganno. Milan: Giuffrè.
Denney, R. L., & Sullivan, J. P. (Eds.). (2008). Clinical neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting. New York: Guilford Press.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79.
DePaulo, B. M., Kirkendol, S. E., Tang, J., & O’Brien, T. P. (1988). The motivational impairment effect in the communication of deception: replications and extensions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(3), 177–202.
DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1096–1103.
DePaulo, B. M., LeMay, C. S., & Epstein, J. A. (1991). Effects of importance of success and expectations for success on effectiveness at deceiving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 14–24.
DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.
DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1984). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dick, J. P. (1991). A conceptual, case-relation representation of text for intelligent retrieval. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Dix, J., Parsons, S., Prakken, H., & Simari, G. (2009). Research challenges for argumentation. Computer Science: Research and Development, 23(2009), 27–34.
Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2), 321–357.
Dung, P. M., Thang, P. M., & Hung, N. D. (2010). Modular argumentation for modelling legal doctrines of performance relief. Argument & Computation, 1(1):,47–69.
Dunne, P. E. (2003). Prevarication in duspute protocols. In G. Sartor (Ed.), Proceedings of the ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, Scotland, 24–28 June 2003 (pp. 12–21). New York: ACM Press.
Dunne, P. E., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (Eds.). (2005). Argumentation in AI and law. (IAAIL Workshop Series, 2.) Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Wolff Publishers.
Durandin, G. (1972a). Les fondements du mensonge. Paris: Flammarion.
Durandin, G. (1977). De la difficulté à mentir. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, and Louvain, Belgium: Nauwelaerts.
Durandin, G. (1982). Les mensonges en propagande et en publicité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).
Durandin, G. (1993). L’information, la désinformation et la réalité. (Collection “Le psychologue”.) Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).
Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies. New York: Norton.
Ekman, P. (1996). Why don’t we catch liars? Social Research, 63, 801–817.
Ekman, P. (1997b). Deception, lying and demeanor. In D. F. Halpern & A. E.Voiskounsky (Eds.), States of mind: American and post-soviet perspectives on contemporary issues in psychology (pp. 93–105). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). From flawed self-assessment to blatant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 673–686.
Ericson, R. V. (1981). Making crime: A study of detective work. Toronto, ON: Butterworths.
Felson, M. (1992). Routine activities and crime prevention: Armchair concepts and practical action. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 1, 30–34.
Flowers, M., McGuire, R., & Birnbaum, L. (1982). Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks. Chapter 10 In W. Lehnert & M. Ringle (Eds.), Strategies for natural language processing (pp. 275–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fox, J. (1986). Knowledge, decision making and uncertainty. Chapter 3 In W. A. Gale (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 57–76). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fox, J., & Parsons, S. (1998). Arguing about beliefs and actions. In A. Hunter & S. Parsons (Eds.), Applications of uncertainty formalisms (pp. 266–302). Berlin: Springer.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin: Floris Publications.
Freeman, K., & Farley, A. M. (1996). A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3/4), 157–161.
Gilbert, M. (2002). Informal logic, argumentation theory & artificial intelligence: Introduction. (Special issue.) Informal Logic, 22, 191–194.
Gilbert, M., Grasso, F., Groarke, L., Gurr, C., & Gerlofs, J.-M. (2003). “The Persuasion Machine”: Argumentation and computational linguistics. Chapter 5 In C. Reed & T. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 121–174). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gordon, T. F. (1995). The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(4), 239–292.
Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. N. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–896.
Grasso, F. (2002b). Towards computational rhetoric. Informal Logic Journal, 22(3), 225–259.
Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: A case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(6), 1077–1115.
Grasso, F., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., & Simari, G. R. (2010). Introducing argument & computation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 1–5.
Greenwood [=Atkinson], K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2003). Towards a computational theory of persuasion in law. In G. Sartor (Ed.), Proceedings of the ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, Scotland, 24–28 June 2003 (pp. 22–31). New York: ACM Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37, 130–155.
Harman, G. (1986). Changes in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information management: On the regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 10–16.
Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (2005). The Toulmin model today: Introduction to the special issue on contemporary work using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s layout of arguments. Argumentation, 19, 255–258.
Holmström-Hintikka, G. (1995). Expert witnesses in legal argumentation. Argumentation, 9(3), 489–502.
Hunter, D., Tyree, A., & Zeleznikow, J. (1993). There is less to this argument than meets the eye. Journal of Law and Information Science, 4(1), 46–64.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
Johnson, P. E., Zualkernan, I. A., & Tukey, D. (1993). Types of expertise: An invariant of problem solving. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 39, 641.
Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation. London & Berlin: Springer.
Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1996). Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3/4), 275–296. Also In H. Prakken & G. Sartor (Eds.), Logical models of legal argumentation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1997.
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104, 1–69.
Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Goransson, M., & Fox, J. (1995). A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence, 11(1), 113–131.
Leach, A.-M., Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2004). “Intuitive” lie detection of children’s deception by law enforcement officials and university students. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 661–685.
Lewis, C. M., & Sycara, K. (1993). Reaching informed agreement in multispecialist cooperation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(3), 279–300.
Lodder, A. R. (2004). Law, logic, rhetoric: A procedural model of legal argumentation. In S. Rahman & J. Symons (Eds.), Logic, epistemology and the unity of science (pp. 569–588). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Loui, R. P., & Norman, J. (1995). Rationales and argument moves. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2(3), 159–190.
Louis, J.-H. (1987). L’engrenage de la violence. La guerre psychologique aux États-Unis pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Paris: Payot.
Luger, G. F., & Stubblefield, W. A. (1998). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem solving (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
MacCormick, N. (1995). Argumentation and interpretation in law. Argumentation, 9, 467–480.
Maida, A. S. (1991). Maintaining mental models of agents who have existential misconceptions. Artificial Intelligence, 50, 331–383.
Maida, A. S. (1995). Review of Ballim & Wilks (1991). Minds and Machines, 5(2), 277–280.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspect’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Matthijssen, L. J. (1999). Interfacing between lawyers and computers: An Architecture for knowledge based interfaces to legal databases. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
McCornack, S. A., Levine, T. R., Solowczuk, K. A., & Torres, H. I. (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59(1), 17–29.
Mégret, M. (1956). La guerre psychologique. (Collection “Que sais je?”, 713.) Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).
Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1998). Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility. London: McGraw-Hill. Second edition: Psychology and law. Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility of victims, witnesses and suspects. Chichester: Wiley, 2003.
Mokherjee, D., & Sopher, B. (1994). Learning behavior in an experimental matching pennies game. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(1), 62–91. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Morgan, J. E. (2008). Noncredible competence: How to handle “newbies”, “wannabes”, and forensic “experts” who know better or should know better. In R. L. Heilbronner (Ed.), Neuropsychology in the courtroom: Expert analysis of reports and testimony. New York: Guilford Press.
Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of criminal investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Nissan, E. (2007b). Goals, arguments, and deception: A formal representation from the AURANGZEB project. I: An Episode from the Succession War. II: A Formalism for the Capture of Murad. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 18(3), 281–305 and 307–327.
Nissan, E., & Martino, A. A. (2004b). Artificial intelligence and formalisms for legal evidence: An introduction. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(3/4), 185–229.
Nissan, E., & Shimony, S. E. (1996). TAMBALACOQUE: For a formal account of the gist of a scholarly argument. Knowledge Organization, 23(3), 135–146.
Paglieri, F., & Castelfranchi, C. (2005). Revising beliefs through arguments: Bridging the gap between argumentation and belief revision in MAS. In I. Rahwan, P. Moraitis, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 78–94). Berlin: Springer.
Parsons, S., & McBurney, P. (2003). Argumentation-based communication between agents. In M.-P. Huget (Ed.), Communication in multiagent systems: Agent communication languages and conversation policies. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2650). Berlin: Springer.
Pietroski, P. M. (1994). A “should” too many. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(1), 26–27.
Pollock, J. L. (2010). Defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 7–22.
Poole, D. L. (1988). A Logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36, 27–47.
Porter, S., Woodworth, M., Earle, J., Drugge, J., & Boaer, D. (2003). Characteristics of violent behaviour exhibited during sexual homicides by psychopathic and non-psychopathic murderers. Law & Human Behavior, 27, 459–470.
Prakken, H. (1993a). Logical tools for modelling legal argument. Ph.D. thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije University.
Prakken, H. (1997). Logical tools for modelling legal argument: A study of defeasible reasoning in law. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Prakken, H. (2000). On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, & L. Moniz Pereira (Eds.), Proceedings of JELIA'2000: The seventh European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence (pp. 239–253). (Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1919). Berlin: Springer.
Prakken, H. (2002). Incomplete arguments in legal discourse: A case study. In T. J. M. Bench-Capon, A. Daskalopulu, & R. Winkels (Eds.), Legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2002: The fifteenth annual conference (pp. 93–102). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Prakken, H. (2004). Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability & Risk, 3, 33–50.
Prakken, H. (2005). Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 1009–1040.
Prakken, H. (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21, 163–188.
Prakken, H. (2008a). A formal model of adjudication dialogues. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16, 305–328.
Prakken, H. (2008b). Formalising ordinary legal disputes: A case study. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 16, 333–359.
Prakken, H., & Renooij, S. (2001). Reconstructing causal reasoning about evidence: A case study. In B. Verheij, A. R. Lodder, R. P. Loui, & A. J. Muntjwerff (Eds.), Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2001: The 14th annual conference (pp. 131–137). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1995b). Argumentation framework: The missing link between arguments and procedures. European Journal of Law, Philosophy and Computer Science, 1/2, 379–396. Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1996a). A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(3/4), 331–368. Alternative title: Rules about rules: Assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning; reprinted in H. Prakken & G. Sartor (Eds.), Logical models of legal argumentation (pp. 175–212)., Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1997.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Argumentation frameworks: The missing link between arguments and procedure. European Journal of Law, Philosophy and Computer Science, 1/2, 379–396.
Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (2002). The role of logic in computational models of logic argument: A critical survey. In A. Kakas & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational logic: Logic programming and beyond. Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II (pp. 342–380). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2048). Berlin: Springer.
Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. N. (2003). Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In G. Sartor (Ed.), Proceedings of the ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2003), Edinburgh, Scotland, 24–28 June 2003 (pp. 32–41). New York: ACM Press.
Rahwan, I. (2005). Guest editorial: Argumentation in multi-agent systems. (Special issue.) Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11, 115–125.
Rahwan, I., & McBurney, P. (2007). Guest editors’ introduction: Argumentation technology. (Special issue.) IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22, 21–23.
Raskin, V. (1987). Semantics of lying. In R. Crespo, B. Dotson-Smith, & H. Schultink (Eds.), Aspects of language: Studies in honour of Mario Alinei, Vol. 2: Theoretical and applied semantics (pp. 443–469). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Raskin, V. (1993). Semantics of lying. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reed, C., & Norman, T. J. (Eds.). (2003). Argumentation machines: New frontiers in argument and computation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 14(3/4), 961–980.
Rissland, E. L., & Skalak, D. B. (1991). CABARET: Statutory interpretation in a hybrid architecture. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 839–887.
Rissland, E. L., Skalak, D. B., & Friedman, M. T. (1996). BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4(1), 1–71.
Sanders, W. B. (1977). Detective work: A study of criminal investigation. New York: Free Press.
Sartor, G. (1994). A formal logic for legal argumentation. Ratio Juris, 7, 212–226.
Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the Juror: The psychology of Juror decision making (pp. 175–191). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schum, D. (2001). Evidence marshaling for imaginative fact investigation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9(2/3), 165–188.
Sergot, M. (2005). Modelling unreliable and untrustworthy agent behaviour. In B. Dunin Keplicz, A. Jankowski, A. Skowron, & M. Szczuka (Eds.), International workshop on monitoring, Security, and rescue technique in multiagent systems, Plock, Poland, 7–9 June 2004 (pp. 161–177). Berlin: Springer.
Shortliffe, E. H. (1976). Computer based medical consultations: MYCIN. New York: Elsevier.
Shortliffe, E. H., & Buchanan, B. G. (1975). A method of inexact reasoning, Mathematical Biosciences, 23, 351–379.
Simhon, D., Nissan, E., & Zigdon, N. (1992). Resource evaluation and counterplanning with multiple-layer rulesets, in the BASKETBALL expert system. In G. Tenenbaum, Ts. Raz-Liebermann, & Tz. Artzi (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on computer applications in sport and physical education, Natania, Israel (pp. 60–80). Natania: The Wingate Institute.
Skalak, D. B., & Rissland, E. L. (1992). Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1), 3–44.
Stein, A. (2000). Evidential rules for criminal trials: Who should be in charge? In S. Doran & J. Jackson (Eds.), The judicial role in criminal proceedings (pp. 127–143). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Stranieri, A. (1999). Automating legal reasoning in discretionary domain s. Ph.D. Thesis. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University.
Stranieri, A., Yearwood, J., & Meikl, T. (2000). The dependency of discretion and consistency on knowledge representation. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 14(3), 325–340.
Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M., & Lewis, B. (1999). A hybrid rule–neural approach for the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(2/3), 153–183.
Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., & Yearwood, J. (2001). Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 16(4), 331–348.
Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003a). Affecting the perception of verbal cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 35–49.
Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003b). How to detect deception? Asessing the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(1), 19–36.
Strömwall, L. A., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Detecting deceit in pairs of children. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1285–1304.
Strömwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behavior and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 207–219.
Summers, R. S. (1978). Two types of substantive reasons: The core of a theory of common-law justification. Cornell Law Review, 63, 707–788.
Sweetser, E. (1987). The definition of lie: An examination of the folk theories underlying a semantic prototype. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 43–66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sycara, K. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28, 203–242.
Sycara, K. (1992). The PERSUADER. In D. Shapiro (Ed.), The encyclopedia of artificial intelligence. Chichester: Wiley.
Taylor, J. A. (1994b). Using hierarchical autoepistemic logic to model beliefs in dialogue. In J. R. Koza (Ed.), Artificial life at Stanford 1994. Stanford, CA: Stanford Bookstore. Also: Technical report HCRC/RP 60 (November), Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 435–467. Commentaries and riposte up to p. 502.
Thagard, P. (2000a). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thagard, P. (2000b). Probabilistic networks and explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1, 91–114.
Thagard, P. (2004). Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(3/4), 231–249.
Tillers, P. (Ed.). (2007). Graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings. Special issue. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(1–4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press (reprints: 1974, 1999).
Trankell, A. (1972). The reliability of evidence: Methods for analyzing and assessing witness statements. Stockholm: Beckmans.
Twining, W. L. (1984). Taking facts seriously. Journal of Legal Education, 34, 22–42.
van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Relevance in logic and grammar. Chapter 2 In J. Norman & R. Sylvan (Eds.), Directions in relevant logic (pp. 25–57). Boston: Kluwer. http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Relevance%20in%20logic%20and%20grammar.pdf
Van Eemeren, E. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1995). Argumentation theory. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 55–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Eemeren, E. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoek Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van Eemeren, E. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Amsterdam: Foris.
van Gelder, T. J. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able [sic]. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2002, 85–90.
Vendler, Z. (1975a). On what we know. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 370–390). (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Vendler, Z. (1975b). Reply to Professor Aune. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 400–402). (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Verheij, B. (2000). Dialectical argumentation as a heuristic for courtroom decision-making. In P. J. van Koppen & N. H. M. Roos (Eds.), Rationality, information and progress in law and psychology: Liber Amicorum Hans F. Crombag (pp. 203–226). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Metajuridica Publications.
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167–195.
Verheij, B. (2005). Virtual arguments: On the design of argument assistants for lawyers and other arguers. The Hague, The Netherlands: T. M. C. Asser Press.
Vreeswijk, G. (1993). Defeasible dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach towards defeasible argumentation. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(3), 3–27.
Vreeswijk, G. A. W., & Prakken, H. (2000). Credulous and sceptical argument games for preferred semantics. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, & L. Moniz Pereira (Eds.), Proceedings of JELIA'2000: The seventh European workshop on logic for artificial intelligence (pp. 239–253). Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1919. Berlin: Springer.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. Wiley Series on the Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley. Second edition: 2008.
Vrij, A. (2005). Co-operation of liars and truth-tellers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 39–50.
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of nonverbal behavior, 20(1), 65–80.
Waismann, F. (1951). Verifiability. In A. Flew (Ed.), Logic and language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walton, D. (1996a). The witch hunt as a structure of argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 389–407.
Walton, D. (2010). A dialogue model of belief. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 23–46.
Walton, D. N. (1996b). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walton, D. N. (1998a). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D. N. (1998b). Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. N. (2002). Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, D. N. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. N. (2006a). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 745–777.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., & Schafer, B. (2006). Arthur, George and the mystery of the missing motive: Towards a theory of evidentiary reasoning about motives. International Commentary on Evidence, 4(2), 1–47.
Wigmore, J. H. (1913). The problem of proof. Illinois Law Review, 8(2), 77–103.
Wigmore, J. H. (1937). The science of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated judicial trials (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Previously: The Principles of Judicial Proof; or, the Process of Proof as Given by Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and Illustrated Judicial Trials, Boston, 1931, 1934, 2nd edn.; The Principles of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic (etc.), Boston, 1913, 1st edn.
Wooldridge, M. (2000). Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 3(1), 9–31.
Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. Chichester: Wiley 2nd edition, 2009. [Page numbers as referred to in this book are to the 1st edition.]
Yearwood, J., & Stranieri, A. (2006). The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning. Decision Support Systems, 41(2), 358–379.
Yearwood, J., & Stranieri, A. (2009). Deliberative discourse and reasoning from generic argument structures. AI & Society, 23(3), 353–377.
Zeleznikow, J. (2002a). Risk, negotiation and argumentation: A decision support system based approach. Law, Probability and Risk: A Journal for Reasoning Under Uncertainty, 1(1), 37–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1985). Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of deception. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multi-channel integrations of non-verbal behavior (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and non-verbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic.
Anderson, T., & Twining, W. (1991). Analysis of evidence: How to do things with facts. (With a teacher’s manual.) London: Weidenfeld & NicolsonFootnote
There was a preliminary circulation draft already in 1984.
; Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1991; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998. [The 2nd edn. (extensively revised) is Anderson et al. (2005).]Vrij, A. (2001). Detecting the liars. Psychologist, 14, 596–598.
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 36(2), 113–126.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. L., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
Tsiamyrtzis, P., Dowdall, J., Shastri, D., Pavlidis, I. T., Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2005). Imaging facial physiology for the detection of deceit. International Journal of Computer Vision, 71(2), 197–214.
Sycara, K. (1989a). Argumentation: Planning other agents’ plans. In Proceedings of the eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’89), Detroit, MI, pp. 517–523. http://ijcai.org/search.php
Sycara, K. (1989b). Multiagent compromise via negotiation. In L. Gasser & M. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence, 2 (pp. 119–138). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, and London: Pitman.
Zukerman, I., McConachy, R., & Korb, K. (1998). Bayesian reasoning in an abductive mechanism for argument generation and analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI 98 Conference, Madison, WI, July 1998, pp. 833–838.
Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2004). Detection deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P. (1997a). Lying and deception. In N. L. Stein, P. A. Ornstein, B. Tversky, & C. Brainerd (Eds.), Memory for everyday and emotional events (pp. 333–347). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2003). Nonverbal detection of deception in forensic contexts: Handbook of forensic psychology. New York: Academic.
Durandin, G. (1978). La manipulation de l’opinion. In Revue des travaux de l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (pp. 143–173).
Carofiglio, V., & de Rosis, F. (2001b). Exploiting uncertainty and incomplete knowledge in deceptive argumentation. In Computational science, ICCS 2001 (pp. 1019–1028). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2073). Berlin: Springer.
Chadwick, D. W., Basden, A., Evans, J., & Young, A. J. (1998). Intelligent computation of trust. Short paper at the TERENA Networking Conference ’98 (TNC’98), Dresden, 5–8 October 1998. TERENA, the Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association.
Carofiglio, V., de Rosis, F., & Grassano, R. (2001). An interactive system for generating arguments in deceptive communication. In F. Esposito (Ed.), Proceedings of AI*IA 2001: Advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 255–266). (Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 2175). Berlin: Springer.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2005). Common knowledge in legal reasoning about evidence. International Commentary on Evidence, 3(1), Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art1
Wooldridge, M., & van der Hoek, W. (2005). On obligations and normative ability: Towards a logical analysis of the social contract. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 396–420.
Zeleznikow, J., & Stranieri, A. (1995). The Split Up system: Integrating neural networks and rule based reasoning in the legal domain. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law (ICAIL’95). New York: ACM Press, pp. 185–194.
Zeleznikow, J., & Stranieri, A. (1998). Split Up: The use of an argument based knowledge representation to meet expectations of different users for discretionary decision making. In Proceedings of IAAI’98: Tenth Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press, pp. 1146–1151.
Kraus, S. (2001). Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Freeman, K. (1994). Toward formalizing dialectical argumentation. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science and Information Science, University of Oregon.
Schank, P., & Ranney, M. (1995). Improved reasoning with Convince Me. In CHI ’95: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, pp. 276–277.
van den Braak, S. W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? At the Sixth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, held with ECAI’06, Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006.
Reed, C. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2001). Araucaria: Software for puzzles in argument diagramming and XML. Technical report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee. (The Araucaria software is in the public domain, and can be downloaded free of charge from the website http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/).
van Gelder, T. J., & Rizzo, A. (2001). Reason!Able across the curriculum. In Is IT an Odyssey in Learning? Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Computing in Education Group of Victoria. Victoria, Australia.
Verheij, B. (1999). Automated argument assistance for lawyers. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1999). New York: ACM Press, pp. 43–52.
Loui, R. P., Norman, J., Alpeter, J., Pinkard, D., Craven, D., Lindsay, J., et al. (1997). Progress on Room 5: A testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 1997). New York: ACM Press, pp. 207–214.
Aleven, V., & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Evaluating a learning environment for case-based argumentation skills. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 170–179.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005b). A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals of action. In K. Sycara & M. Wooldridge (Eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, special issue of the Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 153–171.
Cayrol, C. & Lagasquie-Schiex, S. (2006). Coalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. At the Seventh international workshop on computational models of natural argument.
Grasso, F., Reed, C., & Carenini, G. (Eds.). (2004). Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA IV) at ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain.
Carenini, G., Grasso, F., & Reed, C. (Eds.). (2002). Proceedings of the ECAI-2002 workshop on computational models of natural argument, at ECAI 2002, Lyon, France.
Bex, F. J., van den Braak, S. W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., Verheij, H. B., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2007). Sense-making software for crime investigation: How to combine stories and arguments? Law, Probability & Risk, 6, 145–168. http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/florisbex/Papers/LPR07.pdf The same article with diagrams in colour: http://www.cs.uu.nl/research/projects/evidence/publications/lpr07submitted.pdf
Bex, F. J., van Koppen, P. J., Prakken, H., & Verheij, B. (2010). A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(2), 123–152. http://www.cs.uu.nl/groups/IS/archive/henry/Bexetal10.pdf http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/florisbex/Papers/AILaw10.pdf
Amgoud, L., Caminada, M., Cayrol, C., Doutre, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Modgil, S., et al. (2004). Argument-based inference. In J. Fox (Ed.), Theoretical Framework for argumentation (pp. 3–46). ASPIC Consortium.
Caminada, M., Doutre, S., Modgil, S., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2004). Implementations of argument-based inference. In J. Fox (Ed.), Review of argumentation technology: State of the art, technical and user requirements (pp. 2–13). ASPIC Consortium.
Allen, M., Bench-Capon, T., & Staniford, G. (2000). A multi-agent legal argument generator. In Proceedings of the eleventh international workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2000) September 2000, Greenwich, London. New York: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1080–1084.
Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. W. (2002). Encoding schemes for a discourse support system for legal argument. In G. Carenini, F. Grasso, & C. Reed (Eds.), Proceedings of the ECAI-2002 workshop on computational models of natural argument, at ECAI 2002, Lyon, France, pp. 31–39.
Verheij, B. (2002). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: Towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Argumentation, ISSA 2002. Amsterdam.
Alexy, R. (1989). A theory of legal argumentation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bourcier, D. (1995). Une approche sémantique de l’argumentation juridique. Revue L’année sociologique., Paris: PUF (June).
Holmström-Hintikka, G. (2001). Expert witnesses in the model of interrogation. In A. A. Martino & E. Nissan (Eds.), Software, Formal models, and artificial intelligence for legal evidence, special issue of Computing and Informatics, 20(6), 555–579.
Chaib-Draa, B., & Dignum, F. (Eds.). (2002). Trends in agent communication language. Special issue of Computational Intelligence, 18, 89–101.
Carenini, G., & Moore, J. (1999). Tailoring evaluative arguments to user’s preferences. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on User Modeling (UM-99) Banff, Canada.
Carenini, G., & Moore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001) Seattle, WA.
Delannoy, J. F. (1999). Argumentation mark-up: A proposal. In Proceedings of the workshop: Towards standards and tools for discourse tagging Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 18–25. Article W99-0303 in the online version of the proceedings, accessible in ACL Anthology (at http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu//W/W99/).
Singh, M. (1999). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Proceedings of the IJCAI’99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 75–88. http://ijcai.org/search.php
Kibble, R. (2004). Elements of social semantics for argumentative dialogue. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, & G. Carenini (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA IV) at ECAI 2004, Valencia, Spain, pp. 25–28.
Gulotta, G., & Zappalà, A. (2001). The conflict between prosecution and defense in a child sexual abuse case and in an attempted homicide case. In D. M. Peterson, J. A. Barnden, & E. Nissan (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and law, special issue, Information and Communications Technology Law, 10(1), 91–108.
Brigsjord, S., Shilliday, A., Taylor, J., Clark, M., & Khemlani, S. (2006). Slate: An argument-centered intelligent assistant to professional reasoners. At the Sixth International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument held with ECAI’06 Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006.
Dick, J. P. (1987). Conceptual retrieval and case law. In Proceedings of the first international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Boston. New York: ACM Press, pp. 106–115.
Marshall, C. C. (1989). Representing the structure of legal argument. In Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 121–127
Prakken, H. (1993b). A logical framework for modelling legal argument. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1–9.
Farley, A. M., & Freeman, K. (1995). Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 156–164.
Alexander, R. (2000). Reflections on gender in family law decision making in Australia. Ph.D thesis, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton, VIC.
Yearwood, J., & Stranieri, A. (1999). The integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: A third generation legal knowledge based system. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’99). New York: ACM Press, pp 117–137.
Branting, K., Callaway, C., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (1999). Integrating discourse and domain knowledge for document drafting. In Proceedings of seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. New York: ACM Press, pp. 214–220.
Jennings, N., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Faratin, P. (2000). Automated negotiation. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the practical application of intelligent agents and multi-agent technology. The Practical Application Company, pp. 23–30.
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Wright, D. B. (2006). Memory conformity: Disentangling the steps towards influence during a discussion. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 480–485.
Planty, M., & Strom, K. J. (2007). Understanding the role of repeat victims in the production of annual US victimization rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(3), 179–200.
Galasinski, D. (1996). Pretending to cooperate: How speakers hide evasive actions. Argumentation, 10, 375–388.
Reed, C., & Grasso, F. (Eds.). (2007). Recent advances in computational models of natural argument. Special issue in the International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 22.
de Rosis, F., Castelfranchi, C., & Carofiglio, V. (2000). On various sources of uncertainty in modeling suspicion and how to treat them. In Proceedings of the workshop on deception, fraud and trust in agent societies, At the Autonomous Agents 2000 Conference, pp. 61–72.
Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183–198). New York: Academic Press.
Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., & McBurney, P. (2005c). Persuasive political argument. In F. Grasso, C. Reed, & R. Kibble (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2005), at IJCAI 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Nissan, E. (2011f). The dog ate it: The fate of homework as a situational archetype for a pretext. Social context, medium, and formalism. The American Journal of Semiotics , 27(1–4), 115–162.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nissan, E. (2012). Argumentation. In: Computer Applications for Handling Legal Evidence, Police Investigation and Case Argumentation. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8990-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8990-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8989-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8990-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)