Skip to main content
Log in

A dialogue system specification for explanation

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper builds a dialectical system of explanation with speech act rules that define the kinds of moves allowed, like requesting and offering an explanation. Pre and post-condition rules for the speech acts determine when a particular speech act can be put forward as a move in the dialogue, and what type of move or moves must follow it. A successful explanation has been achieved when there has been a transfer of understanding from the party giving the explanation to the party asking for it. The dialogue has an opening stage, an explanation stage and a closing stage. Whether a transfer of understanding has taken place is tested by a dialectical shift to an examination dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle: (1928) On sophistical refutations. Loeb classical library. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K., Bench-Capon T. J. M., McBurney P. (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152: 157–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M. (2003) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. Journal of Logic and Computation 13: 429–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M., Doutre S., Dunne P. E. (2007) Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artificial Intelligence 171(1): 42–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon T. J. M., Doutre S., Dunne P. E. (2008) Asking the right question: Forcing commitment in examination dialogues. In: Besnard P., Doutre S., Hunter A. (eds) Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 49–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M., Israel D., Pollack M. (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4(3): 349–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawsey A. (1992) Explanation and interaction: The computer generation of explanatory dialogues. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingwood R. G. (1946) The idea of history. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray W. (1964) Philosophy of history. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray W. (1995) History as re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood’s idea of history. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2005). Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. Proceedings IJCAI-05 (pp. 1560–1561). Edinburgh.

  • Finocchiaro M. (1980) Scientific discoveries as growth of understanding: The case of Newton’s gravitation. In: Nickles T. (eds) Scientific discovery, logic, and rationality. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 235–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1974) Explanation and scientific understanding. The Journal of Philosophy LXXI: 5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon T. F., Walton D. (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I., Simari G. (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–260

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie W. K. C. (1981) A history of Greek philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass A., Leake D. (1987) Types of explanations. Technical Report ADA183253. U.S. Department of Commerce, Alexandria, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Leake D. B. (1992) Evaluating explanations: A content theory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J. D. (1995) Participating in explanatory dialogues. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin B., Irandoust H., Belanger M., Desbordes G. (2002) Explanation and argumentation capabilities. Artificial Intelligence Review 17: 169–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons S., Jennings N. R. (1997) Negotiation through argumentation: A preliminary report. In: Tokoro M. (eds) Proceedings of the second international conference on multi-agents systems. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 267–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera M. (1994) The discoveries of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. (2005) Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15: 1009–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H. (2006) Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engineering Review 21: 163–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed C. (2006) Representing dialogic argumentation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(1): 22–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank R. C. (1986) Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank R. C., Abelson R. P. (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank R. C., Kass A., Riesbeck C. K. (1994) Inside case-based explanation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank R. C., Riesback C. K. (1981) Inside computer understanding. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlangen, D. (2004). Causes and strategies for requesting clarification in dialogue. In M. Strube & C. Sidner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th SIGdial workshop on discourse and dialogue (pp. 136–143). East Stoudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/hlt-naacl2004/sigdial04/pdf/schlangen.pdf.

  • Scriven M. (1972) The concept of comprehension: From semantics to software. In: Carroll J. B., Freedle R. O. (eds) Language comprehension and the acquisition of knowledge. W. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, pp 31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M. (2002) The limits of explication. Argumentation 16: 47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh M. P. (1999) A semantics for speech acts. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 8: 47–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans F. (1992) Analyzing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. SICSAT, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Trout J. D. (2002) Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 69(2): 212–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth L. (2001) Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school texts. International Journal of Science Education 23: 585–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheij B. (2003) Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright G. H. (1971) Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar W. A., van Koppen P. J., Crombag H. F. M. (1993) Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. (2003) The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1771–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. (2006) Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 745–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2007a). Dialogical models of explanation. Explanation-aware computing: Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop. Technical Report WS-07-06 (pp. 1–9). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

  • Walton D. (2007b) Clarification dialogue. Studies in communication sciences 7: 165–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D., Krabbe E. C. W. (1995) Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D. A dialogue system specification for explanation. Synthese 182, 349–374 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9745-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9745-z

Keywords

Navigation