Figure 3 - uploaded by David Botting
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
In several papers Budzynska and Reed have argued that inferences should be ‘anchored’ to relations between utterances rather than to utterances themselves; then, by appeal to what they call ‘dialogue glue', these relations are somehow reified as ‘implicit’ speech-acts. In this paper I will argue that this is a mistake caused by confusion over diffe...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... now cases of corroboration with two witnesses given in Figure 3. The block arrow has been used to indicate the illocutionary connection of assertion, the block arrow to indicate the illocutionary connection of argument, and TA1 and TA2 are instances of Transition by Witness Response, with the precursors of the transition (namely, the illocutionary acts of questioning) not shown. ...
Citations
... There has been some debate about what to do about this. Botting (2015) says that the choice to anchor arguments on transitions is a conceptual mistake. However, for the creators of IAT, the reason illocutionary acts can be rooted on dialogical relations follows ...directly from pragma-dialectical analysis which views the speech act of assertion [...] as occurring at the 'sentence' level, and the speech act of argumentation as occurring at a 'higher textual level.' (Budzynska andReed 2011) Visser et al. (2011) describe the theoretical considerations in more detail. ...
To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been applied to both mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport's structured proofs.
