Reference : Directionality of Attacks in Natural Language Argumentation

	Document type :	Scientific congresses, symposiums and conference proceedings : Paper published in a journal
	Discipline(s) :	Engineering, computing & technology : Multidisciplinary, general & others
	To cite this reference:	http://hdl.handle.net/10993/37027

Title :	Directionality of Attacks in Natural Language Argumentation
Language :	English
Author, co-author :	Cramer, Marcos [University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Science, Technology and Communication (FSTC) > Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC) >]
	Guillaume, Mathieu [University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education (FLSHASE) > Education, Culture, Cognition and Society (ECCS) >]
Publication date :	2018
Journal title :	CEUR Workshop Proceedings
Publisher :	RWTH Aachen University
Peer reviewed :	Yes
ISSN :	1613-0073
City :	Aachen
Country :	Germany
Event name :	Bridging the Gap between Human and Automated Reasoning 2018
Event date :	14-07-2018
Abstract :	[en] In formal (abstract and structured) argumentation theory, a central notion is that of an attack between a counterargument and the argument that it is challenging. Unlike the notion of an inconsistency between two statements in classical logic, this notion of an attack between arguments can be asymmetric, i.e. an argument A can attack an argument B without B attacking A. While this property of the formal systems studied by argumentation theorist has been motivated by considerations about the human practice of argumentation in natural language, there have not been any systematic studies on the connection between the directionality of attacks in argumentation-theoretic formalisms and the way humans actually interpret conflicts between arguments in a non-symmetric way. In this paper, we report on the result of two empirical cognitive studies that aim at filling this gap, one study with ordinary adults (undergraduate students) and one study with adult experts in formal argumentation theory. We interpret the results in light of the notions and distinctions defined in the ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation, and discuss the relevance of our findings to past and future empirical studies about the link between human argumentation and formal argumentation theory.
Permalink :	http://hdl.handle.net/10993/37027

	File(s) associated to this reference
	Fulltext file(s): File Commentary Version Size Access Open access Bridging_2018.pdf Publisher postprint 153.41 kB View/Open

All documents in ORBi^lu are protected by a user license.

 

University of Luxembourg Library |  Feedback |  Legal notices Site Map