Abstract
Argument represents an opportunity for a system to convince a possibly sceptical or resistant audience of the veracity of its own beliefs. This ability is a vital component of rich communication, facilitating explanation, instruction, cooperation and conflict resolution. In this paper, a proposal is presented for the architecture of a system capable of constructing arguments. The design of the architecture has made use of the wealth of naturally occurring argument, which, unlike much natural language, is particularly suited to analysis due to its clear aims and structure. The proposed framework is based upon a core hierarchical planner conceptually split into four levels of processing, the highest being responsible for abstract, intentional and pragmatic guidance, and the lowest handling realisation into natural language. The higher levels will have control over not just the logical form of the argument, but also over matters of style and rhetoric, in order to produce as cogent and convincing an argument as possible.
This work has been funded by EPSRC grant no. 94313824.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackermann, R.J. “Belief and Knowledge”, Anchor, New York (1972)
Ambros-Ingerson, J.A., Steel, S. “Integrated Planning, Execution and Monitoring”, in Readings in Planning, (1990) 735–740.
Blair, H. “Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres”, Charles Daly, London (1838)
Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J. “Rational Interaction as the Basis for Communication” in Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E., (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Boston (1990) 221–255
Fox, M., Long., D. P. “Hierarchical Planning using Abstraction”, IEE Proceedings on Control Theory and Applications (1995)
Freese, J.H. (trans), Aristotle “The Art of Rhetoric”, Heinmann, London (1926)
Galliers, J.R. “Autonomous belief revision and communication” in Gardenfors, P., (ed), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992) 220–246
Gardenfors, P. “Belief Revision: An Introduction” in Gardenfors, P., (eds), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992) 1–28
Grosz, B., Sidner, C.L “Plans for Discourse” in Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M.E., (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Boston (1990) 418–444
Hovy, E. H. “Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations”, Artificial Intelligence 63, (1993) 341–385
Johnson, R.M. “A Logic Book”, Wadsworth, Belmont CA (1992)
Levin, J.A& Moore, J.A. “Dialogue Games: Metacommunication Structures for Natural Language Interaction”, Cognitive Science 1, (1977) 395–420
Long, D., Garigliano, R. “Reasoning by Analogy and Causality: A Model and Application”, Ellis Horwood (1994)
McCoy, K.F. “Contextual Effects on Responses to Misconceptions”, in Kempen, G., (ed), Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, Kluwer (1986) 43–54
Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A. “Rhetorical structure theory: description and construction of text structures” in Kempen, G., (ed), Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics, Kluwer (1986) 279–300
Moore, J.D., Pollack, M.E. “A Problem for RST: The Need for Multi-Level Discourse Analysis”, Computational Linguistics 18 (4), (1992) 537–544
Moore, J.D., Swartout, W.R. “A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User's Feedback into Account”, in Paris, C.L., Swartout, W.R. & Mann, W.C. (eds), Natural Language Generation in AI & Computational Linguistics, Kluwer, (1991) 3–48
Sacerdoti, E.D. “A Structure for Plans and Behaviour”, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1977)
Sandell, R. “Linguistic Style and Persuasion”, Academic Press, London (1977)
Smith, M.H., Garigliano, R., Morgan, R.C. “Generation in the LOLITA system: An engineering approach” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (INLG'94), Kennebunkport, Maine (1994)
Vreeswijk, G. “IACAS: an implementation of Chisolm's Principles of Knowledge”, Proceedings of the 2nd Dutch/German Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Utrecht, Witteveen, C. et al. (eds) (1995) 225–234
Whately, R. “Logic”, Richard Griffin, London (1855)
Wilson, B.A. “The Anatomy of Argument”, University Press of America, Washington (1980)
Young, R.M., Moore, J.D. “DPOCL: A principled approach to discourse planning” in Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Kennebunkport, Maine, (1994) 13–20
Zlotkin, G. & Rosenchein, J.S. “Negotiation and Conflict Resolution in Non-Cooperative Domains”, in Proceedings of the National Conference on AI (AAAI'90), (1990) 100–105
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Reed, C., Long, D., Fox, M. (1996). An architecture for argumentative dialogue planning. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds) Practical Reasoning. FAPR 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1085. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_100
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61313-7_100
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61313-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68454-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive