Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
(Amgoud and Maudet 2002 ; Karunatillake and Jennings 2005 ; Riveret et al.
2008 ; Rahwan and Larson 2009 ; Paglieri and Castelfranchi 2010 ). 2
(b) Argument editing : all decisions concerning what arguments to use ( selection )
and how to present them to the audience ( presentation ), in order to maximize
their intended effects (Hample and Dallinger 1990 , 1992 ; Hample 2005 ; Hample
et al. 2009 ). These argumentative decisions also have obvious relevance in
rhetoric, and in fact, most of the five canons of Western classical rhetoric
(inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntiatio) can be seen as different
sub-decisions concerning effective argument presentation.
(c) Argument timing : the decision on when it is time to speak and when it is
time to listen. An appropriate timing of one's argumentative contribution and
an awareness about the optimal length of one's speech are essential elements
for making an effective argument in almost every dialogical context, including
one-way presentations in front of an audience. In contrast, most argumentation
theories lack a systematic study of this aspect, and the only form of timing
which is considered consists in the kind of highly stylized, improbably well-
mannered turn-taking assumed by some dialogical approach for an illustration,
look at the otherwise informative example of argumentative dialogue provided
by Walton and Krabbe ( 1995 , pp. 86-91).
(d) Argument interpretation : if there are ambiguities in what the counterpart is say-
ing, the decision on whether to criticize them, ask for more clarity or additional
information, or solve them autonomously and if so, favoring what interpre-
tation, on what grounds, and to what ends. A well-studied case of argument
interpretation concerns enthymemes, but most theories of enthymemes focus
on what is the normatively correct/legitimate reconstruction of the argument.
To highlight the arguer's underlying decisions, pragmatic approaches such as
relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986 ; Wilson and Sperber 2002 )aremore
useful (for additional details on this point, see Paglieri 2007 ; Paglieri and Woods
2011a , b ).
(e) Argument reaction : decisions concerning whether to accept or challenge an
argument, an objection, or a counterargument raised by the counterpart. This
area has been so far dominated by normative concerns: the widely received
wisdom in argumentation theories is that arguments should be challenged and
critical questions should be asked, whenever appropriate, but there has been
little consideration on what reasons (other than being right) might guide this
choice (see Gilbert 1997 , for some in-depth discussion of these issues, as well
as a critique of the enduring lack of attention they suffered in argumentation
theories).
(f) Argument termination : the decision on when and how to end an ongoing
argument. Clearly, the arguer cannot unilaterally “decide” to win the argument
2 Costs and benefits are crucial also in relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1986 ; Wilson
and Sperber 2002 ), but with several important differences with respect to the decision-theoretic
approach outlined here (for discussion of this point, see Paglieri 2013b ).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search