AbstractThe emphasis in most process-oriented models of argumentation is placed heavily upon analysis of dialogue. The current work puts forward an account which examines the argumentation involved in persuasive monologue, drawing upon commitment-based theories of dialogue. The various differences between monologue and dialogue are discussed, with particular reference to the possibility of designing a monologue game in which commitments are dynamically incurred and updated as the monologue is created. Finally, the computational advantages of adopting such an approach are explored in the context of an existing architecture for the generation of natural language arguments.
Similar books and articles
A Monologue, a Dialogue and the Attention Paid to Ego.Vlastimil Zuska - 2009 - Filozofia 64 (5):436-442.
Revisiting Dialogues and Monologues.Tone Kvernbekk - 2012 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):966-978.
Dialogue: Can Two Be Cheaper Than One?Sam Glucksberg - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):199-199.
A Vision for the Third Millennium the Age of Global Dialogue Dialogue or Death!Leonard Swidler - 2001 - Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (1):6-18.
Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.Martin J. Pickering & Simon Garrod - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):169-190.
Generating Coherence Relations Via Internal Argumentation.Rodger Kibble - 2007 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):387-402.
Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values.Chris Reed - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (3).
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.