Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Communicative Acts in Formal Dialogues

100%

Yaskorska O., Budzyńska K.

Filozofia Nauki

2014

vol. 22

issue 3

43-66

The aim of this paper is to propose the description of formal dialogues in terms of speech act theory similarly to the description typical for contemporary dialogue systems of natural communication (Prakken 2006). The main motivation is the problem with Lorenzen’s dialogical logic (Lorenz, Lorenzen 1978) as pointed out in (Hodges 2009): “he [Lorenzen] spoke of moves as »attacks«, even when […] they look more like help than hostility. To repair Lorenzen’s omission, one certainly needs to distinguish between different stances that a person might take in an argument: stating, assuming, conceding, querying, attacking, committing oneself”. The solution proposed in the paper is to map the dialogical logic onto the general language for natural dialogue systems, which uses speech acts as a basic unit of communication (Prakken 2006). To this end, dialogical logic has been reconstructed by specifying three types of rules which describe the usage of speech acts during a dialogue game. The rules of the first type, called locution rules, determine speech acts players are allowed to perform during a dialogue game (e.g. an attack on the conjunction can be made by performing a speech act question which has a conjunct as its propositional content); the second set of rules, called protocol, describes the interaction of the speech acts during the dialogue (e.g. the player defends the conjunction ψ by claiming the truth of its conjunct ? which was questioned during the attack; i.e. after question ? the player can perform claim ?); the rules of the third type, called effect rules, specify effects of performing speech acts during the dialogue (e.g. after the player performs claim ?, the formula ? is added to her commitment store, i.e. to the set of propositions that she publicly declared as her beliefs). The proposed description of dialogical logic in the general language of dialogue systems can be used for studying and systematising structures of sound informal communication as suggested by Hodges. In particular, it allows to embed Lorenzen’s system in a protocol of dialogue systems designed for natural communication and, as a result, to detect formal fallacies committed during a natural dialogue. In other words, during a dialogue the players can decide to verify the validity of an inference scheme they used in argumentation by shifting from the natural dialogue to a formal (Lorenzen-style) dialogue both expressed in the same language. After finishing the formal dialogue, the players return to the natural one and accept or reject the inference scheme depending on who won the formal game: the proponent (then they accept that the scheme is valid in a given logic) or the opponent (then they reject the scheme as incorrect).

Kryteria poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych

81%

Koszowy M., Budzyńska K., Yaskorska O.

Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

2013

vol. 49

issue 2(196)

145-172

Celem artykułu jest próba odpowiedzi na pytanie: jakie są podstawowe typy kryteriów oceny poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych? Pokażemy, że we współczesnych badaniach rozwijanych na gruncie teorii błędnych technik tego typu (ang. theory of fallacies) teoretycy zazwyczaj koncentrują się na jednym z trzech aspektów: (1) kryterium logicznym, zgodnie z którym źródeł wadliwości tych technik upatruje się w przeprowadzanych rozumowaniach i inferencji, (2) kryterium dialektycznym, według którego wadliwość związana jest z nieprzestrzeganiem reguł dialogu przez jego uczestników, oraz (3) kryterium retorycznym, w którym wadliwości upatruje się w niepoprawnym wykorzystaniu środków perswazji (wadliwość związana z perswazyjną funkcją komunikacji). W artykule dokonujemy też przeglądu typowych podejść skupiających się na jednym z powyższych kryteriów oraz pokazujemy takie ujęcie, które umożliwia jednoczesne uwzględnienie wszystkich wymienionych aspektów.

The aim of the paper is to explore the question: what are most basic types of criteria for evaluation of the communicative and cognitive techniques? We will show that argumentation scholars usually focus on one of three aspects of fallacies: (1) the logical criterion, according to which the sources of fallaciousness of communicative and cognitive techniques lie in the way the reasoning and inference is performed, (2) the dialectical criterion, according to which the fallaciousness of communicative and cognitive techniques is related to the violations of dialogue rules by the participants of the dialogue, and (3) the rhetorical criterion according to which the fallaciousness is recognized as the incorrect use of the persuasive means (the fallaciousness related to the persuasive function of communication). In the paper we propose an overview of typical approaches which focus on the one of those three criteria: logical, dialectical and rhetorical, and we also show an approach which allows to combine all mentioned criteria.

Refine search results

1 Filozofia Nauki

1 Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa

2 Budzyńska K.

2 Yaskorska O.

1 Koszowy M.

1 2014

1 2013

Search results

Communicative Acts in Formal Dialogues

Kryteria poprawności technik komunikacyjno-poznawczych