语境中对话复杂性的管理:辩证回答结构的数据驱动发现方法

IF 1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Argumentation Pub Date : 2021-01-19 DOI:10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x
Olena Yaskorska-Shah
{"title":"语境中对话复杂性的管理:辩证回答结构的数据驱动发现方法","authors":"Olena Yaskorska-Shah","doi":"10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Current formal dialectical models postulate normative rules that enable discussants to conduct dialogical interactions without committing fallacies. Though the rules for conducting a dialogue are supposed to apply to interactions between actual arguers, they are without exception theoretically motivated. This creates a gap between model and reality, because dialogue participants typically leave important content-related elements implicit. Therefore, analysts cannot readily relate normative rules to actual debates in ways that will be empirically confirmable. This paper details a new, data-driven method for describing discussants’ actual reply structures, wherein corpus studies serve to acknowledge the complexity of natural argumentation (itself understood as a function of context). Rather than refer exclusively to propositional content as an indicator of arguing pro/contra a given claim, the proposed approach to dialogue structure tracks the sequence of dialogical moves itself. This arguably improves the applicability of theoretical dialectical models to empirical data, and thus advances the study of dialogue systems.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Managing the Complexity of Dialogues in Context: A Data-Driven Discovery Method for Dialectical Reply Structures\",\"authors\":\"Olena Yaskorska-Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Current formal dialectical models postulate normative rules that enable discussants to conduct dialogical interactions without committing fallacies. Though the rules for conducting a dialogue are supposed to apply to interactions between actual arguers, they are without exception theoretically motivated. This creates a gap between model and reality, because dialogue participants typically leave important content-related elements implicit. Therefore, analysts cannot readily relate normative rules to actual debates in ways that will be empirically confirmable. This paper details a new, data-driven method for describing discussants’ actual reply structures, wherein corpus studies serve to acknowledge the complexity of natural argumentation (itself understood as a function of context). Rather than refer exclusively to propositional content as an indicator of arguing pro/contra a given claim, the proposed approach to dialogue structure tracks the sequence of dialogical moves itself. This arguably improves the applicability of theoretical dialectical models to empirical data, and thus advances the study of dialogue systems.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-020-09543-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目前的形式辩证模型假定了规范性规则,使讨论者能够在不犯谬误的情况下进行对话互动。尽管进行对话的规则应该适用于实际辩论者之间的互动,但它们无一例外地具有理论动机。这造成了模型和现实之间的差距,因为对话参与者通常会隐含重要的内容相关元素。因此,分析人士无法轻易地将规范性规则与实际辩论联系起来,而这种联系在经验上是可以证实的。本文详细介绍了一种新的、数据驱动的方法来描述讨论者的实际回答结构,其中语料库研究有助于承认自然论证的复杂性(其本身被理解为上下文的函数)。所提出的对话结构方法不是专门将命题内容作为支持/反对给定主张的指标,而是跟踪对话动作本身的顺序。这可以说提高了理论辩证模型对经验数据的适用性,从而推进了对话系统的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Managing the Complexity of Dialogues in Context: A Data-Driven Discovery Method for Dialectical Reply Structures

Current formal dialectical models postulate normative rules that enable discussants to conduct dialogical interactions without committing fallacies. Though the rules for conducting a dialogue are supposed to apply to interactions between actual arguers, they are without exception theoretically motivated. This creates a gap between model and reality, because dialogue participants typically leave important content-related elements implicit. Therefore, analysts cannot readily relate normative rules to actual debates in ways that will be empirically confirmable. This paper details a new, data-driven method for describing discussants’ actual reply structures, wherein corpus studies serve to acknowledge the complexity of natural argumentation (itself understood as a function of context). Rather than refer exclusively to propositional content as an indicator of arguing pro/contra a given claim, the proposed approach to dialogue structure tracks the sequence of dialogical moves itself. This arguably improves the applicability of theoretical dialectical models to empirical data, and thus advances the study of dialogue systems.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
期刊最新文献
Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue Cambridge University Press, 263 pp The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View Negotiation as Practical Argumentation A Particularist Approach to Arguments by Analogy The Dialectical Principle of Charity: A Procedure for a Critical Discussion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1