characterising rhetorical argumentation

235 Pages·2012·1.06 MB·English

CHARACTERISING RHETORICAL
ARGUMENTATION
By
Floriana Grasso
SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
AT HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY
ON COMPLETION OF RESEARCH IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTING & ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
JUNE 2003.
Thiscopy of the thesis has been suppliedon the conditionthat anyone who consultsit is understood to
recognisethatthecopyrightrestswithitsauthorandthatnoquotationfromthethesisandnoinformation
derivedfromitmaybepublishedwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentoftheauthorortheuniversity(asmay
beappropriate).
Iherebydeclarethattheworkpresentedinthisthesiswascarried
outbymyselfatHeriot-WattUniversity,Edinburgh,exceptwhere
due acknowledgement is made, and has not been submitted for
anyotherdegree.
FlorianaGrasso(Candidate)
Dr. AlisonCawsey(Supervisor)
Date
ii
Abstract
The study of argumentation has undergone periods of decadence alternate with periods of renaissance.
Currently, we are witnessing one of the latter, as proved by research flowering in many issues and as-
pects, both in Philosophy and in Artificial Intelligence. The work presented in this thesis is concerned
in particular with “rhetorical argumentation”, which on the other hand has enjoyed consideration to a
somewhatlesserextent. Byrhetoricalargumentswedenoteargumentswhicharebothheavily basedon
theaudience’s perceptionoftheworld,and concernedmorewithevaluative judgmentsthanwithestab-
lishingthetruthorotherwiseofaproposition. Ratherthanalogicfocusonargumentativereasoning,ora
purecomputationallinguisticfocusonmodellingdiscoursewhichhappenstobeargumentative,weplace
ourselves halfway and specifically focus on the characterisation of rhetorical argumentative discourse.
Methodologically, wedothisbyexplicitlydrawinguponthephilosophyofargument.
The thesis proposes an all encompassing framework for the formalisation of rhetorical argumenta-
tion, inspired by a well establishedphilosophical theory, the New Rhetoric. The thesis starts by giving
aformaldefinitionofrhetoricalargument,andrhetoricalreasoning. Itproposesamodelforarhetorical
dialogue game between two partners. It provides a characterisation of the game partners, in terms of
theirmentalattitudes. Themodelisthenappliedtoaparticulartaskanddomain,thatistheprovisionof
healtheducationonnutritionalissues. Anontologicalanalysisoftheknowledgerequiredtoperformthe
taskisproposed,basedonapsychologicalmodelofbehaviouralchange. Finally, thethesisproposesan
architectureintegratingthevariouscomponents,informedbytheformalmodeldefined.
The work is admittedly biased towards the generation, rather than understanding, of argumentative
discourse,andwesee,andindeedwebuilt,ourformalisationtobecomfortablyusedinasystemforgen-
eratingargumentative discoursebasedonplanning. Atthesametime,weseeourworkasacontribution
to typical pragmatic issues of providing a characterisation of what the speaker has to take into account
whenproducinga“good”argument,andthereforewhatthehearercanascribetothespeaker. Theframe-
workiswellgroundedontheoreticalfoundations,andindeedourproposalcoherentlyintegratesworkin
thephilosophyofargument,inlinguistics,insocialpsychologyandinartificialintelligence.
iii
Acknowledgements
People are divided into two categories: those who always have to read the acknowledgement section,
andthosewhocannotbebothered. Ibelongtotheformer. Thesewordsarededicatedtoallthekindred
spiritswhowillreadthem.
TheenterpriseofaPhDisnotworththepaperonwhichthethesisiswritten,ifitdoesnotteachsomething
which goes beyond the actual content of the work itself. In fact, somebody would say it is not worth,
fullstop. Iwouldliketothankhereallthosewhocontributedtothis“addedvalue”. No,I’llrephrasethis.
Tothe“mainvalue”.
First and foremost I am grateful to AlisonCawsey. For showing me that research is not only high blue
skies, but also rigour and critical work. For teaching me how to write in English (all the Italianate
sentenceshereareentirelymyfault). Andforpatientlyadaptingherconceptofadeadlinetomine.
JeanCarlettaandKeithBrown,myexaminers,forthemostenjoyablediscussiononmywork.
AlanGibbons,PaulLeng,andalloftheDepartmentofComputerScienceofLiverpoolUniversity,thatI
joinedhalfwaythroughmyPhD:forgivingmetheopportunitytofinishthisworkwhileworkingthere.
A specialthank to Mike Wooldridge,for giving me a reason to get this stuff to completion(no, it’s not
thenewlaptop,Mike!).
YoramKalman,VeredYatsiv,andallthestaffatK.I.T.
Fiorella de Rosis, for disclosing me the captivation, the enjoyment and the reward of research. For her
dearfriendship. Andforalwaysbelieving,despiteallodds,thatmyideaswereworthtobepursued.
Chris Reed: a colleague, and a friend. For involving me into the almost ”mystical” experience of the
Symposium at Bonskeid House. And Giuseppe Carenini, the third cavalier of the CMNA workshop
series.
ThosewithwhomIhavehadoccasional(ornotsooccasional)chatsaboutmyresearch: MichaelGilbert,
Leo Groarke, Jaanne-Maike Gerlofs, and Corin Gurr (aka the infamous ”G” group), Henry Prakken,
Leila Amgoud, Tim Norman, Ehud Reiter, Valeria Carofiglio, Nadia De Carolis, Helen Gigley, Ce´cile
Paris,PeterMcBurney,ChrisMellish,TrevorBench-Capon,CristianoCastelfranchi,JoelKatzav,Dianne
iv
Berry,AlistairKnott,MassimoPoesio,SimonParsons,DanielaCarbogim,GrahameHirst,DougWalton,
JorisHulstijn,RinoFalcone,MichaelBacharac. And,lastbutfirstofall,BillMann.
Ray Jones, who always seemed to enthuse over the idea of arguing with patients (!), and the staff at
thePublicHealthandHumanNutritionDepartmentsoftheUniversityofGlasgow,especiallyCatherine
HankeyandSophieTessier.
DianaBental, withwhomI sharedtheoffice at Heriot-Watt: forhersenseof humour, andher exquisite
kindness.
Manuel Trucco, who, being the first specimen I have encountered of an Italian lecturer in UK, helped
meunderstandtheoftenmistifyingwaysofBritishacademia,andwhoforcedmetostandbeforeaclass,
albeitsmall,andteachfortheveryfirsttime.
TheItaliansinEdinburgh: Francesca,Tiziana,Gianluca,Stefania,Nunzio,Mariangela,Andrea,Mimmo.
AndTim,whosurrendedtotheItalianinvasionofhisflatbydecidingtolearnItalianandtofindanally
inoneoftheenemies. Forthelaughters,thechatsuntildawn,caffe´,tequilaandmovies.
The Italians in Liverpool: Annarita, Felice, Gianni, Victoria, Edward, Giuseppe, Michelle, Maresa,
Gianluca,Momo,Riccardo,Nunzia,Marco,Kate,Leonardo,Carlo,Eugenia,Lucia,Mimmo,Massimo,
Pio,Chiara,Sergio,andwhoeverelseI’veundoubtedlyforgot. Andthefortypluspeoplewhoturnedup
formybirthdaypizza: Iknowyouonlycamefortheguest,butitwasfunnevertheless.
Theotheremigranti,especiallyNicola,Marina,Daniela,Roberto,Antonella.
Ken, for such an incredible variety of things, from fixing my Linux problems, to taking pictures at my
wedding,nottomentionintroducingmetothemostsquisitaChinesecuisine.
Jeff: so,thethesisisover. Ormai.
Marialuisa,forbeingthere.
Francesco: lifeinEdinburgh, andlifeingeneral,wouldhavebeensomuchdifferentwithouthim.
Valentina: formakingLiverpoolalittlepieceofhome,offamily,ofthingsusualandwarm.
Laura,Nicola,Matteo,Isabella: forgivingmeaperspective oflife,inwhich,thankgoodness,mywork
issoinsignificant.
Edinburgh, foralwayssmilingatme.
Liverpool,foralwaysmakingmesmile.
All my family, and in particular Mum, Dad and Cesare: for their love and their incessant support, no
matterwhatIwasupto,orhowharditwasforthem.
MyhusbandMichele. Wordsaresoinadequate,toevenstarttoexplain.
AndALLtheoneswhoborewithmeeverytimeIwouldswearthiswasjustimpossible.
WhileinEdinburgh, thisworkhadthefinancialsupportofEPSRC.
v
Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
ListofTables ix
ListofFigures x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 TheProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 TheApproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 OutlineoftheThesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 ATheoryofRhetoricalArgumentation 6
2.1 HistoricalTraits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 ClassicalTradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 TheNewRhetoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3 ModernDevelopments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 TheNewRhetoric: aPointofDepartureforourFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1 ArgumentationIsBasedonPremises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2 ArgumentationConsistsofSchemata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 RhetoricalArgumentationandComputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.1 DiscourseProcessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.2 GenerationofArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.3 RepresentingKnowledgeasArgument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 AModelofRhetoricalArgumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.1 AFormalModelofRhetoricalArgument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.2 RhetoricalSchemata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.4.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4.4 SchemataandTheirUseinGeneratingRhetoricalArguments . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3 ArgumentationasaDialogicActivity 50
3.1 ModelsofArgumentative Dialogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1.1 DiscourseAnalysisandDialogueGames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.1.2 PhilosophicalApproaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.1.3 FormalApproaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2 ComputationalApproaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.1 NegotiationamongAutonomousAgents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
vi
3.2.2 ArgumentationBasedCollaborative Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.2.3 ComputationalDialectics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.3 ADialogueModelforRhetoricalArgumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.1 TheParticipants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.3.2 TheMoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.3 DialogueRules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3.4 GoalsoftheDialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4 TheArguingPartners 80
4.1 MentalStates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.1.1 PropositionalAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1.2 DiversityofPropositionalAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.1.3 AttitudesaboutotherAgents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2 ComputationalApproaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.2.1 RepresentingPropositionalAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.2.2 ChangingAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.3 RepresentingMutuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.3 AMentalModelforaRhetoricalArguer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3.1 RepresentingMentalAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.3.2 RepresentingMutuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.3.3 MutualityacrossAttitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3.4 UseofContextsinDialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5 AnApplicationScenario: HealthPromotionDialogues 109
5.1 HealthPromotionasanArgumentative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.1.1 ModelsofChange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.2 ComputationandHealthPromotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.3 AnalysisofHealthPromotionDialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5.3.1 DiscourseAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.3.2 AThree-LayeredCodingSchemefortheAnalysisoftheCorpus . . . . . . . . . 119
5.3.3 ACorpusofDialoguesonNutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3.4 AnalysingArgumentative Dialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.3.5 AnExampleofAnnotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6 ModellingKnowledge 132
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.2 Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.2.1 OntologyDevelopmentMethodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.3 AnOntologyEngineeringApproachtoDesigntheKnowledgeBase . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.3.1 MotivatingScenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.3.2 InformalCompetencyQuestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.3.3 SpecificationoftheInformalTerminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.3.4 SpecificationoftheFormalTerminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.3.5 FormalCompetencyQuestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.3.6 AxiomsSpecification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
vii
6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7 Daphne: AModelofaDialecticAdviser 153
7.1 TheArchitectureofanAdvisoryAgent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.2 DialogueUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
7.3 ReasoningUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.3.1 DealingwithNegations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.3.2 AttitudeSpaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.3.3 ChoosingamongExtensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.4 PlanningUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.4.1 PlanningProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.4.2 PlanningDecisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.5 AnExample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8 ParalipomenaandFinalRemarks 172
APPENDICES 177
A TheNewRhetoricSchemataFormalised 178
A.1 Quasilogical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
A.1.1 Subset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
A.1.2 Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
A.1.3 Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
A.1.4 Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
A.1.5 Transitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
A.1.6 Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
A.1.7 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A.2 Basedonthestructureofreality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A.2.1 Sequential. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A.2.2 Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
A.3 Establishingthestructureofreality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
A.4 Dissociation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
B E-mailDialogueExample 187
C InformalCompetencyQuestions 190
C.1 Questionsregardingtheargumentationontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
C.2 Questionsregardingthestate-actionontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
C.3 Questionsregardingthebehaviouralontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
D NotationforObjectModels 198
E ATMS 199
E.1 GeneralDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
E.2 Labellingalgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
E.3 NATMS:Negated-assumptionATMS:extendedalgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
BIBLIOGRAPHY 206
viii
List of Tables
1 ExamplesofNewRhetoric’s schemata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2 ReciprocitySchema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 PragmaticSchema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4 ModelSchema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 ParametersofMann’sDialogueGame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6 ExamplesofMann’sDialogueGame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7 Pragmadialecticrulesforcriticaldiscussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8 WaltonandKrabbedialoguetypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9 DialogueMoveTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
10 DefinitionofthegameboardforthegameinFig.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
11 BehaviourofsomeattitudeswithrespecttoBarwiseandPerry’s8principles . . . . . . . 86
12 CharacteristicsofSCMstates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
13 ActivitiesintheSCMmovements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
14 Anannotateddialoguefragment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
ix
List of Figures
1 Toulmin’sargumentstructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 A(rough)exampleofaknowledgebase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3 RhetoricalargumentsderivablefromtheknowledgebaseinFig.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 GraphicalNotationforDialogueGameBoards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5 Adialoguegame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6 MutualbeliefsinCohen(1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7 MutualbeliefsinTaylor&Whitehill(1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8 MutualbeliefsinBGP-MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9 MutualbeliefsinRHET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
10 MutualbeliefsinViewGen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
11 MutualbeliefsinTRAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
12 MutualbeliefsinTaylor,Carletta&Mellish(1996b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
13 ModelofBeliefNestings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
14 Communicationtypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
15 Extractsfromthecorpusofe-maildialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
16 ExamplesofInformalCompetencyQuestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
17 Sub-Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
18 OntologyofArguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
19 OntologyofHealthBehaviours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
20 OntologyofActions/States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
21 OntologyofFood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
22 TheIntegratedOntology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
23 InstantiationofanOpinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
24 Daphne’sarchitecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
x