Argument analysis: components of interpersonal argumentation

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

    11 Citations (Scopus)


    The aim of the paper is to propose a robust model of interpersonal argumentation (IP). The IP-arguments directly address participants of communication, i.e. they refer to speech acts rather than to propositional contents. Argumentation theory recognizes several IP-arguments, e.g. argument from position to know or ad hominem arguments. The model proposed in the paper enables to describe references to different types of speech acts - not only assertives, but also commissives and directives. The IP-arguments are assumed to be warranted by the component of authorizing an agent to perform a given speech act. Consequently, the wider class of IP-communication can be expressed in the extended model, such as e.g. the structure of generic ad hominem can be explicitly represented as the undercutter. © 2010 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationComputational Models of Argument
    Subtitle of host publicationProceedings of COMMA 2010
    EditorsPietro Baroni, Federico Cerutti, Massimiliano Giacomin, Guillermo R. Simari
    Place of PublicationAmsterdam
    PublisherIOS Press
    Number of pages12
    ISBN (Electronic)9781282880498, 9781607506195
    ISBN (Print)9781607506188
    Publication statusPublished - 2010
    EventThird International Conference on Computational Models of Argument - Palazzo Todeschini (Todeschini Palace), Desenzano del Garda, Italy
    Duration: 8 Sept 201010 Sept 2010

    Publication series

    NameFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications
    ISSN (Print)0922-6389
    ISSN (Electronic)1879-8314


    ConferenceThird International Conference on Computational Models of Argument
    Abbreviated titleCOMMA 2010
    CityDesenzano del Garda
    Internet address


    Dive into the research topics of 'Argument analysis: components of interpersonal argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this