Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation
Because of the need to devise systems for electronic communication on the internet, multi-agent computing is moving to a model of communication as a structured conversation between rational agents. For example, in multi-agent systems, an electronic agent searches around the internet, and collects certain kinds of information by asking questions to other agents. Such agents also reason with each other when they engage in negotiation and persuasion. It is shown in this book that critical argumentation is best represented in this framework by the model of reasoned argument called a dialog, in which two or more parties engage in a polite and orderly exchange with each other according to rules governed by conversation policies. In such dialog argumentation, the two parties reason together by taking turns asking questions, offering replies, and offering reasons to support a claim. They try to settle their disagreements by an orderly conversational exchange that is partly adversarial and partly collaborative.
[Controversies, 5] 2007. xviii, 308 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
-
Acknowledgements | pp. xi–xii
-
Acronyms | pp. xiii–xiv
-
Introduction:: Dialog theory for critical argumentation | pp. xv–xviii
-
Chapter 1. The place of dialog theory | pp. 1–45
-
Chapter 2. The history of dialectic | pp. 47–88
-
Chapter 3. Persuasion dialog | pp. 89–129
-
Chapter 4. Multi-agent dialog systems | pp. 131–157
-
Chapter 5. Agents in critical argumentation | pp. 159–203
-
Chapter 6. Dialectical shifts and embeddings | pp. 205–245
-
Chapter 7. Criticizing a natural language argument | pp. 247–287
-
-
Index | pp. 303–307
“Walton's book is certainly a major landmark in the study of critical discussion, with detailed models and extensive exemplification (notably in chapters six and seven) that help grasping the indubitably logical basis of fair argumentation.”
Louis de Saussure, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, in Pragmatics & Cognition, Vol. 17:2 (2009)
Cited by (55)
Cited by 55 other publications
Barebina, Natalya & Galina Kostyushkina
2024. Analysis of the Deviant Usage of Criticism in Discourse Innovations of Cancel Culture and Woke Culture. Bulletin of Baikal State University 34:1 ► pp. 134 ff. 
Blübaum, Lukas & Stefan Heindorf
2024. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, ► pp. 2204 ff.
Günter, Tuğçe
2024. Argümantasyonla Desteklenmiş PDÖ Yaklaşımında HDR Modeli Kullanılarak Geliştirilen Senaryolarla İlgili Öğrenci Görüşleri Nelerdir?: Nöroendokrin. Journal of Higher Education and Science 14:2 ► pp. 366 ff.
Samoilenko, Sergei A. & John Cook
2024. Developing a Critical Response to Ad Hominem Attacks Against Climate Science. American Behavioral Scientist
Cetinkaya, Ertan & Deniz Saribas
2023. Turkish middle school students’ evaluation of fallacious claims about vaccination. Cultural Studies of Science Education 18:4 ► pp. 1169 ff.
Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz de
2023. Irony and Cognitive Operations. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 38 ff.
Song (宋郁), Yu & Yuchen Shi (石雨晨)
2023. Understanding, Evaluating, and Promoting the Development of Argumentative Competence: An Interview With Dr. Deanna Kuhn From Teachers College, Columbia University. ECNU Review of Education
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Ton van Haaften
2023. The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View. Argumentation 37:3 ► pp. 341 ff.
Campillo, Rosa María López & José Luis Gómez Ramos
2022. Argumentation Skills for the Design of Formative Assessment Queries. In Design and Measurement Strategies for Meaningful Learning [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 1 ff.
Bonzon, Elise, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny, Nicolas Maudet, Gabriella Pigozzi & Srdjan Vesic
2021. A parametrized ranking-based semantics compatible with persuasion principles. Argument & Computation 12:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
Cheong, Choo-Mui, Xinhua Zhu & Wandong Xu
2021. Source-Based Argumentation as a Form of Sustainable Academic Skill: An Exploratory Study Comparing Secondary School Students’ L1 and L2 Writing. Sustainability 13:22 ► pp. 12869 ff.
Sheldrick, R. Christopher, Gracelyn Cruden, Ana J. Schaefer & Thomas I. Mackie
2021. Rapid-cycle systems modeling to support evidence-informed decision-making during system-wide implementation. Implementation Science Communications 2:1
Yaskorska-Shah, Olena
2021. Managing the Complexity of Dialogues in Context: A Data-Driven Discovery Method for Dialectical Reply Structures. Argumentation 35:4 ► pp. 551 ff.
Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon, Floris Bex, Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor & Bart Verheij
2020. In memoriam Douglas N. Walton: the influence of Doug Walton on AI and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28:3 ► pp. 281 ff.
Burgin, Mark & Jaime F. Cárdenas-García
2020. A Dialogue Concerning the Essence and Role of Information in the World System. Information 11:9 ► pp. 406 ff.
Ormerod, Richard
2020. The pragmatic logic of OR consulting practice: Towards a foundational view. Journal of the Operational Research Society 71:11 ► pp. 1691 ff.
Can, S. Nazli & Deniz Saribas
2019. An Argumentative Tool for Facilitating Critical Evaluation. Science & Education 28:6-7 ► pp. 669 ff.
Johnson, Evan Layne
2018. Pragmatically synthesizing existing conspiracy styles: blending paranoia and politics in Richard Nixon’s early-career anticommunist rhetoric. Argumentation and Advocacy 54:3 ► pp. 238 ff.
Ormerod, Richard J.
2018. The logic and methods of OR consulting practice: towards a foundational view. Journal of the Operational Research Society 69:9 ► pp. 1357 ff.
Bodlović, Petar
2017. Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 513 ff.
Bonzon, Elise, Jérôme Delobelle, Sébastien Konieczny & Nicolas Maudet
2017. A Parametrized Ranking-Based Semantics for Persuasion. In Scalable Uncertainty Management [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10564], ► pp. 237 ff.
Brescó de Luna, Ignacio
2017. The end into the beginning: Prolepsis and the reconstruction of the collective past. Culture & Psychology 23:2 ► pp. 280 ff.
Bøgeskov, Benjamin Olivares, Lise Dam Rasmussen & Elvi Weinreich
2017. Between meaning and duty - leaders’ uses and misuses of ethical arguments in generating engagement. Journal of Nursing Management 25:2 ► pp. 129 ff.
Gibson, Howard & Darren Garside
2017. The Undergraduate Education Studies Dissertation: Philosophical Reflections upon Tacit Empiricism in Textbook Guidance and the Latent Capacity of Argumentation. Studies in Philosophy and Education 36:2 ► pp. 115 ff.
Ilie, Cornelia
2017. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10], ► pp. 1 ff.
Lemaitre, Christian & Pablo Noriega
2017. Characterising Polemical Disputes. In Multi-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10207], ► pp. 549 ff.
Rocci, Andrea
2017. Meaning and Argumentation. In Modality in Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 29], ► pp. 33 ff.
Caminada, Martin W. A., Wolfgang Dvořák & Srdjan Vesic
2016. Preferred semantics as socratic discussion. Journal of Logic and Computation 26:4 ► pp. 1257 ff.
Chen, Ying-Chih, Benus, Mathew J. & Yarker, Morgan B.
2016. Using Models to Support Argumentation in the Science Classroom. The American Biology Teacher 78:7 ► pp. 549 ff.
Laas, Oliver
2016. Toward Truthlikeness in Historiography. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy VIII:2
Lombardi, Doug, Carol B. Brandt, Elliot S. Bickel & Colin Burg
2016. Students’ evaluations about climate change. International Journal of Science Education 38:8 ► pp. 1392 ff.
Namdar, Bahadir & Ji Shen
2016. Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education 38:7 ► pp. 1100 ff.
Yengin, Ilker & Ibrahim Furkan Ince
2016. 2016 15th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET), ► pp. 1 ff.
Bacchini, Fabio
2015. A popperian approach to rational argumentation in applied ethics. Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:3 ► pp. 243 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2013. Informal Logic. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 1 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2013. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 1 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2013. Formal Dialectical Approaches. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 1 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2014. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 517 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2014. Formal Dialectical Approaches. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 301 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2014. Informal Logic. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory, ► pp. 373 ff.
Giaretta, Pierdaniele & Giuseppe Spolaore
2012. Validity and Effectiveness of Ambiguity: A Famous Argument by Socrates. Argumentation 26:3 ► pp. 393 ff.
Groarke, Leo
2012. Should Mercier and Sperber Change the Way We Teach and Study Reasoning?. Argumentation and Advocacy 48:3 ► pp. 188 ff.
Macagno, Fabrizio
2012. Presumptive Reasoning in Interpretation. Implicatures and Conflicts of Presumptions. Argumentation 26:2 ► pp. 233 ff.
Spranzi, Marta
2012. The Nature and Purpose of Aristotelian Dialectic Revisited: Argumentation Theory, Scientific Controversies and Epistemology. In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory [Argumentation Library, 22], ► pp. 163 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2012. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion. Argumentation 26:4 ► pp. 439 ff.
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2015. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation Under Discussion. In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse [Argumentation Library, 27], ► pp. 181 ff.
Newell, George E., Richard Beach, Jamie Smith & Jennifer VanDerHeide
2011. Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research. Reading Research Quarterly 46:3 ► pp. 273 ff.
Nussbaum, E. Michael
2011. Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education. Educational Psychologist 46:2 ► pp. 84 ff.
Nussbaum, E. Michael & Ordene V. Edwards
2011. Critical Questions and Argument Stratagems: A Framework for Enhancing and Analyzing Students' Reasoning Practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences 20:3 ► pp. 443 ff.
Trognon, Alain, Martine Batt, Manuel Rebuschi & Christine Sorsana
2010. Une approche des raisonnements émergents de l’interlocution : la logique interlocutoire. Pratiques :147-148 ► pp. 131 ff.
Walton, Douglas
2010. Burden of Proof in Deliberation Dialogs. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6057], ► pp. 1 ff.
Walton, Douglas
2011. An Argumentation Model of Deliberative Decision-Making. In Technologies for Supporting Reasoning Communities and Collaborative Decision Making, ► pp. 1 ff.
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
2023. The Scope of Irony. In The Cambridge Handbook of Irony and Thought, ► pp. 15 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Subjects
Communication Studies
Main BIC Subject
CFG: Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis
Main BISAC Subject
LAN015000: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Rhetoric