Argumentation in representation semantics

Raccah, Pierre-Yves

doi:10.3115/980431.980603

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A first model. For 'didactical' reasons, I will present the formal system in two steps: in the first step, I will reformulate the system used in Raccah (1984c), show what it can account for and what it cannot; I will then propose the last version of the representation system, as a solution to the problems with the first one.…”

Section: How?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Representing the asserted argumentation. Descriptions belonging to this sub-system are potential argumentative orientations, which I have sometimes called pre-orientations (see, for instance, Raccah, 1984c). Like the potential topoi, they can be seen as functions from possible situations, to possible conclusions.…”

Section: Rr(a-little-a): Rr(a) and Form(ant(top/a-little-a )) = +mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 See Dascal (1983) for a discussion of the difference between sentence meaning, utterance meaning, and speaker meaning. 4 See Raccah (1984c). The reference to Occam is due to the fact that this abstraction principle presupposes that the objects of scientific theories are not ontologically real individuals, but rather, abstract concepts.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modelling argumentation and modelling with argumentation

Raccah

1990

Argumentation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the epistemological and methodological bases of a scientific theory of meaning and proposes a detailed version of a formal theory of argumentation based on Anscombre and Ducrot's conception. Argumentation is shown to be a concept which is not exclusively pragmatic, as it is usually believed, but has an important semantic body. The bridge between the semantic and pragmatic aspects of argumentation consists in a set of gradual inference rules, called topoi, on which the argumentative movement is based. The content of each topos is determined at the pragmatic level, while the constraints on the forms of the topoi attached to a sentence are determined at the semantic level. Applications and possible applications to artificial intelligence and to cognitive sciences are discussed. In particular, the gradual models used to account for argumentation are shown to be extremely promising for knowledge management, a discipline which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, transmission of knowledge (communication, interfaces, etc.), knowledge production (decision help, reasoning, etc.). A first formal model is presented and discussed: it is shown in details how it accounts for most of the argumentative features of sentences containing but, little and a little, and how it can be extended to describe sentences containing other argumentative connectives. However, this model is shown to be too simple and to violate the compositionality principle, which is shown, in the first section, to be an important methodological principle for any scientific theory. After a detailed analysis of the possible reasons for this violation, an improved model is proposed and its adequacy is discussed.

show abstract

Section: How?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rr(a-little-a): Rr(a) and Form(ant(top/a-little-a )) = +mentioning

confidence: 99%