Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation
Douglas N. Walton
[Controversies, 5] 2007. xviii, 308 pp.
Douglas N. Walton
List of John Benjamins publications for which Douglas N. Walton plays a role.
Titles
Subjects Communication Studies | Discourse studies | Pragmatics
Subjects Discourse studies | Philosophy | Pragmatics | Semantics
Topical Relevance in Argumentation
Douglas N. Walton
[Pragmatics & Beyond, III:8] 1982. viii, 81 pp.
Subjects Pragmatics | Semantics | Theoretical linguistics
2019 Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum ad verecundiam Pragmatics and Society 10:2, pp. 287–315 | Article
The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new… read more
2013 Argument kinds and argument roles in the Ontario provincial election, 2011 Journal of Argumentation in Context 2:2, pp. 226–258 | Article
This paper is a report of a pilot study of how candidates argue when they are running for political office. The election studied was the provincial election in Ontario, Canada, in the fall of 2011. Having collected about 250 arguments given during the election from newspaper media, we sought… read more
2012 The Carneades model of argument invention Pragmatics & Cognition 20:1, pp. 1–31 | Article
Argument invention is a method that can be used to help an arguer find arguments that could be used to prove a claim he needs to defend. The aim of this paper is to show how argumentation systems recently developed in artificial intelligence can be applied to the task of argument invention. One… read more
2011 Formal dialectical systems and their uses in the study of argumentation Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, Feteris, Eveline T., Bart Garssen and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), pp. 245–264 | Article
2011 Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence Pragmatics & Cognition 19:1, pp. 92–116 | Article
Reasoning from negative evidence takes place where an expected outcome is tested for, and when it is not found, a conclusion is drawn based on the significance of the failure to find it. By using Gricean maxims and implicatures, we show how a set of alternatives, which we call a paradigm, provides… read more
2007 A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation Pragmatics & Cognition 15:2, pp. 313–346 | Article
The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher,… read more
2006 Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligence Pragmatics & Cognition 14:1, pp. 3–36 | Article
This investigation joins recent research on problems with ambiguity in two fields, argumentation and computing. In argumentation, there is a concern with fallacies arising from ambiguity, including equivocation and amphiboly. In computing, the development of agent communication languages is based… read more
1999 Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems Pragmatics & Cognition 7:1, pp. 177–203 | Article
In this paper, it is shown how formal dialectic can be extended to model multi-agent argumentation in which each participant is an agent. An agent is viewed as a participant in a dialogue who not only has goals, and the capability for actions, but who also has stable characteristics of types that… read more
1993 The speech act of presumption Pragmatics & Cognition 1:1, pp. 125–148 | Article
This paper presents a speech act analysis of presumption, using the framework of a dialogue in which two parties reason together. In the speech act of presumption, as opposed to that of assertion, the burden of proof resides not on the proponent to prove, but on the respondent to rebut. Some… read more