David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 123 (3):327-346 (2000)
Dialogue theory, although it has ancient roots, was put forward in the 1970s in logic as astructure that can be useful for helping to evaluate argumentation and informal fallacies.Recently, however, it has been taken up as a broader subject of investigation in computerscience. This paper surveys both the historical and philosophical background of dialoguetheory and the latest research initiatives on dialogue theory in computer science. The main components of dialogue theory are briefly explained. Included is a classification of the main types of dialogue that, it is argued, should provide the central focus for studying many important dialogue contexts in specific cases. Following these three surveys, a concluding prediction is made about the direction dialogue theory is likely to take in the next century, especially in relation to the growing field of communication studies.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alain Lecomte & Myriam Quatrini (2011). Figures of Dialogue: A View From Ludics. Synthese 183 (S1):59-85.
Sara L. Uckelman (2013). Medieval Disputationes de Obligationibus as Formal Dialogue Systems. Argumentation 27 (2):143-166.
Robert Ricco & Anthony Sierra (2011). Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation. Argumentation 25 (1):37-61.
Similar books and articles
Alec Grierson, David Moore & Tangming Yuan (2011). Assessing Debate Strategies Via Computational Agents. Argument and Computation 1 (3):215-248.
Kevin L. Stoker & Kati A. Tusinski (2006). Reconsidering Public Relations' Infatuation with Dialogue: Why Engagement and Reconciliation Can Be More Ethical Than Symmetry and Reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 21 (2 & 3):156 – 176.
Tone Kvernbekk (2012). Revisiting Dialogues and Monologues. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):966-978.
Douglas Walton (1999). Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments From Ignorance. Argumentation 13 (1):53-71.
Andrew Aberdein (2006). The Informal Logic of Mathematical Proof. In Reuben Hersh (ed.), 18 Unconventional Essays About the Nature of Mathematics. Springer-Verlag. 56-70.
W. J. Morgan & Alexandre Guilherme (2012). I and Thou: The Educational Lessons of Martin Buber's Dialogue with the Conflicts of His Times. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):979-996.
Tasos Kazepides (2012). Education as Dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):913-925.
Kuno Lorenz (2001). Basic Objectives of Dialogue Logic in Historical Perspective. Synthese 127 (1-2):255 - 263.
Roland Jackson, Fiona Barbagallo & Helen Haste (2005). Strengths of Public Dialogue on Science‐Related Issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (3):349-358.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #157,093 of 1,101,091 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #290,337 of 1,101,091 )
How can I increase my downloads?