Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Relevance.D. Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 1986 - Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 2.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   810 citations  
  • On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games.Phan Minh Dung - 1995 - Artificial Intelligence 77 (2):321-357.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   509 citations  
  • An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments.Henry Prakken - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):93-124.
    An abstract framework for structured arguments is presented, which instantiates Dung's ('On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n- Person Games', Artificial Intelligence , 77, 321-357) abstract argumentation frameworks. Arguments are defined as inference trees formed by applying two kinds of inference rules: strict and defeasible rules. This naturally leads to three ways of attacking an argument: attacking a premise, attacking a conclusion and attacking an inference. To resolve such attacks, preferences may (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   143 citations  
  • A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
    Inspired by legal reasoning, this paper presents a formal framework for assessing conflicting arguments. Its use is illustrated with applications to realistic legal examples, and the potential for implementation is discussed. The framework has the form of a logical system for defeasible argumentation. Its language, which is of a logic-programming-like nature, has both weak and explicit negation, and conflicts between arguments are decided with the help of priorities on the rules. An important feature of the system is that these priorities (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   89 citations  
  • Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2015 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 48 (1):26-53.
    The representation and classification of the structure of natural arguments has been one of the most important aspects of Aristotelian and medieval dialectical and rhetorical theories. This traditional approach is represented nowadays in models of argumentation schemes. The purpose of this article is to show how arguments are characterized by a complex combination of two levels of abstraction, namely, semantic relations and types of reasoning, and to provide an effective and comprehensive classification system for this matrix of semantic and quasilogical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  • A logic for default reasoning.Ray Reiter - 1980 - Artificial Intelligence 13 (1-2):81-137.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   659 citations  
  • Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction.A. Bezuidenhout - 1997 - Mind 106 (423):375-409.
    It has long ben recognised that there are referential uses of definite descriptions. It is not as widely recognised that there are atttributives uses of idexicals and other such paradigmatically singular terms. I offer an account of the referential/attributive distinction which is intended to give a unified treatment of both sorts of cases. I argue that the best way to account for the referential/attributive distinction is to treat is as semantically underdetermined which sort of propositions is expressed in a context. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   65 citations  
  • A means-end classification of argumentation schemes.Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - In Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen, Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 183-201.
    One of the crucial problems of argumentation schemes as illustrated in (Walton, Reed & Macagno 2008) is their practical use for the purpose of analyzing texts and producing arguments. The high number and the lack of a classification criterion make this instrument extremely difficult to apply practically. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure of argumentation schemes and outline a possible criterion of classification based on alternative and mutually-exclusive possibilities. Such a criterion is based not on what (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning.Fabrizio Macagno & Alessandro Capone - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (4):399-422.
    The problem of establishing the best interpretation of a speech act is of fundamental importance in argumentation and communication in general. A party in a dialogue can interpret another’s or his own speech acts in the most convenient ways to achieve his dialogical goals. In defamation law this phenomenon becomes particularly important, as the dialogical effects of a communicative move may result in legal consequences. The purpose of this paper is to combine the instruments provided by argumentation theory with the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Interpretation and Understanding.Marcelo Dascal - 2006 - Critica 38 (114):93-98.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  • Reasoning from paradigms and negative evidence.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas N. Walton - 2011 - Pragmatics and Cognition 19 (1):92-116.
    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 the deep inferential structure on which reasoning from lack of evidence is based. We show that the strength of reasoning from negative evidence depends on how the arguer defines (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy.Douglas Walton - 2010 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (3):217-246.
    In this paper, it is shown (1) that there are two schemes for argument from analogy that seem to be competitors but are not, (2) how one of them is based on a distinctive type of similarity premise, (3) how to analyze the notion of similarity using story schemes illustrated by some cases, (4) how arguments from precedent are based on arguments from analogy, and in many instances arguments from classification, and (5) that when similarity is defined by means of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • A theory of legal reasoning and a logic to match.Jaap Hage - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3):199-273.
    This paper describes a model of legal reasoning and a logic for reasoning with rules, principles and goals that is especially suited to this model of legal reasoning. The paper consists of three parts. The first part describes a model of legal reasoning based on a two-layered view of the law. The first layer consists of principles and goals that express fundamental ideas of a legal system. The second layer contains legal rules which in a sense summarise the outcome of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Philosophical Essays, Volume 1: Natural Language: What It Means and How We Use It.Scott Soames - 2008 - Princeton University Press.
    A judicious collection of old and new, these volumes include sixteen essays published in the 1980s and 1990s, nine published since 2000, and six new essays.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The Burden of Argumentation in Legal Disputes.Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki - 1990 - Ratio Juris 3 (s1):118-129.
    Juristic argumentation must in normal cases lead to a positive conclusion. The adoption of the rules of the burden of argumentation is, therefore, necessary. It is the task of the normative theory of juristic argumentation to formulate and to justify these rules., The rules of the burden of argumentation are constitutive rules. They do not impose duties or obligations to justify, but they state under what conditions a thesis counts as justified. The basic problem lies in the second‐order justification, that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • (1 other version)Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. [REVIEW]Marcelo Dascal & Jerzy Wróblewski - 1988 - Law and Philosophy 7 (2):427-450.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations