Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context

  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of argumentation in AI is based almost exclusively on the use of formal, abstract representations. Despite their appealing computational properties, these abstractions become increasingly divorced from their real world counterparts, and, crucially, lose the ability to express the rich gamut of natural argument forms required for creating effective text. In this paper, the demands that socially situated argumentation places on knowledge representation are explored, and the various problems with existing formalisations are discussed. Insights from argumentation theory and social psychology are then adduced as key contributions to a notion of social context which is both computationally tractable and suitably expressive for handling the complexities of argumentation found in natural language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anscombre, J.C., and Ducrot, O. (1983).Philosophie et langage: L’argumentation dans las langue. Pierre Mardaga, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1996).Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, L. (1982). Argument Molecules: A Functional Representation of Argument Structure. InProceedings of the 2nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-82), AAAI, Pittsburgh, PA. 63–65.

  • Blair, H. (1838).Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Charles Daly, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987).Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, V., Lesgold, A.M. and Weiner, A.W. (1992). Strategies for Contributing to Collaborative Arguments. InProceedings of the 14th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 755–760.

  • Cavalli-Sforza, V., Moore, J.D. and Suthers, D.D. (1993). Helping Students Articulate, Support, and Criticize Scientific Explanations. InProceedings of the World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. 113–120.

  • Cohen, R. (1987). Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse.Computational Linguistics 13(1), 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P.R. and Levesque, H.J. (1990). Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication. In Cohen, P.R. Morgan, J. and Pollack, M.E., (eds),Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Boston. 221–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, S., Fox, J. and Krause, P. (1996). A Unified Framework for Hypothetical and Practical Reasoning (1): Theoretical Foundations. In Gabbay, D. and Ohlbach, H.J.Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 58–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daskalopulu A. and Sergot M.J. (1995). A Constraint-Driven System for Contract Assembly. InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, University of Maryland, College Park, May 21–24, ACM Press 1995. 62–69.

  • Doyle, J. (1988).Artificial Intelligence and rational self-government Report CMU-CS-88-124. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck-Henkemans, F. (1996).Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elhadad, M. (1995). Using Argumentation in Text Generation.Journal of Pragmatics. 24, 189–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elhadad, M. (1992). Generating Coherent Argument Paragraphs. InProceedings of the Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’92), Nantes. 638–644.

  • Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. and Fox, J. (1993). Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. InProceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’93). 114–121.

  • Flowers, M., McGuire, R. and Birnbaum, L. (1982). Adversary Arguments and the Logic of Personal Attacks. In Lehnert, W.G., Ringle, M.H., (eds),Strategies for Natural Language Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 275–294.

  • Fox, J. and Das, S. (1996). A unified framework for hypothetical and practical reasoning (2): lessons from medical applications. In Gabbay, D., Ohlbach, H.J., (eds),Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 73–92.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. and Long, D. (1995). Hierarchical planning using abstraction.IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., 142(3), 197–210.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J.B. (1991).Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbay, D. (1992).LDS—labelled deductive systems. 7th Expanded Draft, Imperial College.

  • Galliers, J.R. (1992). Autonomous belief revision and communication. In Gardenfors, P., (ed),Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (1988).Knowledge in Flux, MIT Press.

  • Geffner, H. (1996). A Formal Framework for Causal Modelling and Argumentation. In Gabbay, D., Ohlbach, H.J., (eds),Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M.A. (1995). Argument and Arguers.Teaching Philosophy 18(2), 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M.A. (1996). Goals in Argumentation. In Gabbay, D., Ohlbach, H.J., (eds),Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. (1994). Computational Dialectics. InProceedings of the Workshop Kooperative Juristische Informationsysteme, GMD Studien Nr. 241, 25–36.

  • Gordon, T. and Karacapilidis, N. (1996). The Zeno Argumentation Framework. InProceedings of the FAPR’96 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Bonn.

  • Green, S.J. and DiMarco, C. (1996). Stylistic Decision-Making in Natural Language Generation. In Adorni, G., Zock, M., (eds),Trends in NLG: An AI Perspective-Selected Papers from EWNLG’93, Springer-Verlag. 125–143.

  • Haggith, M. (1995). A meta-level framework for exploring conflicts in multiple knowledge bases. In Hallam, J., (ed),Hybrid Problems, Hybrid Solutions, IOS Press. 87–98.

  • Haggith, M. (1996).A meta-level argumentation framework for representing and reasoning about disagreement, PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

  • Hovland, C.I., Campbell, E.H. and Brock, T. (1957). The Effects of “Committment” on Opinion Change Following Communication. In Hovland, C.I., (ed),The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovy, E.H. (1990). Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation.Artificial Intelligence. 43, 153–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S.A. (1997). Disputation by Design. InProceedings of the OSSA Conference on Argument and Rhetoric, (to appear), St. Catharines, Canada.

  • Janis, I.L. and Feierabend, R.L. (1957). Effects of Alternative Ways of Ordering Pro and Con Arguments in Persuasive Communications. In Hovland, C.I., (ed),The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, G. (1989). Some Aspects of Agent Theory. InProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’89), Detroit.

  • Kowalski, R.A. and Toni, F. (1994) Argument and Reconciliation. InProceedings of the Legal Reasoning Workshop at the International Symposium on 5th Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo. 9–16.

  • Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Goransson, M., Fox, J. (1995). A Logic of Argumentation for Reasoning under Uncertainty.Computational Intelligence. 11(1), 113–131.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, R. (1987). Defeat among arguments,Computational Intelligence 3, 100–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, F.H. (1925). The psychology of belief. IV. The law of primacy in persuasion.Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. 20, 183–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcu, D. (1996). The Conceptual and Linguistic Facets of Persuasive Arguments. InWorking Notes of the ECAI’96 Workshop, Gaps and Bridges: New Directions in Planning and NLG, Budapest. 43–46.

  • Matwin, S., Szpakowicz, S., Koperczak, Z., Kersten, G.E. and Michalowski, W. (1989). Negoplan: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support.IEEE Expert. 4(4), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maybury, M.T. (1993). Communicative Acts for Generative Natural Language Arguments. InProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), AAAI. 357–364.

  • McConachy, R. and Zukerman, I. (1996). Using Argument Graphs to Generate Arguments. InProceedings of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’96), Budapest. 592–596.

  • McGuire, W.J. (1957). Order of Presentation as a Factor in “Conditioning” Persuasivenes. In Hovland, C.I., (ed),The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 98–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W.J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds),The Handbook of Social Psychology, Addison Wesley. 3, 136–314.

  • Meteer, M.W. (1991). Bridging the Generation Gap between Text Planning and Linguistic Realization.Computational Intelligence. 7(4), 296–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J.D. and Pollack, M.E. (1992). A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-Level Discourse Analysis.Computational Linguistics. 18(4), 537–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, B.J. (1995). Identity and Influence in Social Interaction.Argumentation. 9, 785–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panaget, F. (1994). Using a textual representational level component in the context of discourse or dialogue generation. InProceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, Maine. 127–136.

  • Parsons, S. (1996). Defining Normative Systems for Qualitative Argumentation. In Gabbay, D. and Ohlbach, H.J.Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 449–463.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, S. (1997). Normative Argumentation and Qualitative Probability. In Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A. and Ohlbach, H.J. (eds),Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and Ohlbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969).The New Rhetoric University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Pilkington, R.M., Hartley, J.R., Hintze, D. and Moore, D.J. (1992). Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn: An Interface for Computer-based Dialogue Games.Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 3(3), 275–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, J.L. (1987). Defeasible Reasoning.Cognitive Science. 11, 481–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H. (1996). Dialectical proof theory for defeasible argumentation with defeasible priorities. InProceedings of the FAPR’96 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Bonn.

  • Prakken, H. and Sartor, G. (1996). A System for Defeasible Argumentation, with Defeasible Priorities. In Gabbay, D., Ohlbach, H.J., (eds),Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C.A. and Long, D.P. (1997a). Multiple Subarguments in Logic, Argumentation, Rhetoric and Text Generation. In Gabbay, D.M., Kruse, R., Nonnengart, A. and Ohlbach, H.J. (eds),Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C.A. and Long, D.P. (1997b). Content Ordering in the Generation of Persuasive Discourse. InProceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97), Nagoya, Japan. 1024–1030.

  • Reed, C.A. and Long, D.P. (1997c). Persuasive Monologue. InProceedings of the OSSA Conference on Argument and Rhetoric, (to appear), St. Catharines, Canada.

  • Reed, C.A., Long, D.P. and Fox, M. (1996). An Architecture for Argumentative Discourse Planning. In Gabbay, D., Ohlbach, H.J., (eds),Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 555–566.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C.A., Long, D.P., Fox, M. and Garagnani, M. (1997). Persuasion as a Form of Inter-Agent Negotiation. In Lukose, D., Zhang, C., (eds),Multi-Agent Methodologies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, E., Cawsey, A., Osman, L. and Roff, Y. (1997). Knowledge Acquisition for Content Selection. InProceedings of the 6th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG’97), Duisburg. 117–126.

  • Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdoti, E. (1974). Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces.Artificial Intelligence. 5, 115–135.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sandell, R. (1977).Linguistic Style and Persuasion. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillince, J.A.A. and Minors, R.H. (1992). Argumentation, Self-Inconsistency, and Multidimensional Argument Strength.Communication and Cognition. 25(4), 325–338.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H.W. (1976).Persuasion: understanding, practice and analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986).Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K.P. (1989). Argumentation: Planning Other Agent’s Plans. InProceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’89), Detroit, MI. 517–523.

  • Sycara, K. (1990). Persuasive Argumentation in Negotiation.Theory and Decision. 28, 203–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. (1958).The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, K. (1990). Multiple Goals in Discourse: An Overview of Issues.Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 9(1–2) 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B. (1996). Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: Admissible sets and argumentation stages. InProceedings of the FAPR’96 Workshop on Computational Dialectics, Bonn.

  • Vorobej, M. (1997). What Exactly is a Persuasive Monologue? InProceedings of the OSSA Conference on Argument and Rhetoric, (to appear), St. Catharines, Canada.

  • Vreeswijk, G. (1992). Reasoning with Defeasible Arguments. In Wagner, G., Pearce, D., (eds),Proceedings of the European Workshop on Logics in AI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 189–211.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, V.R., Cegala, D.J., Sharkey, W.F. and Teboul, B. (1990). Cognitive and Tactical Dimensions of Conversation Goal Management.Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 9(1–2), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. (1992).The place of emotion in argument. Pennsylvania State University Press.

  • Wellman, M.P. (1990).Formulation of tradeoffs in planning under uncertainty. Pitman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukerman, I. and McConachy, R. (1995). Generating Discourse across Several User Models: Maximizing Belief while Avoiding Boredom and Overload. InProceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95). 1251–1257.

  • Zukerman, I., Korb, K. and McConachy, R. (1996). Perambulations on the way to an Architecture for a Nice Argument Generator. InWorking Notes of the ECAI’96 Workshop, Gaps and Bridges: New Directions in Planning & NLG, Budapest. 31–36.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University, UB8 3PH, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK

    Chris Reed

Authors
  1. Chris Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reed, C. Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context. AI & Soc 11, 138–154 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812444

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812444

Keywords

Search

Navigation