Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on December 1, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2007 6(1-4):59-85; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm030
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
6/1-4/59    most recent
mgm030v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reed, C.
Right arrow Articles by Rowe, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

A pluralist approach to argument diagramming

Chris Reed{dagger} and Glenn Rowe

School of Computing, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN UK

{dagger} Email: chris{at}computing.dundee.ac.uk

Received on 4 May 2007. Revised on 30 July 2007. Accepted on 30 July 2007.


  Abstract

There is a long history of argument diagramming mechanisms, attesting to the need for, and popularity of visualizations of reasoning patterns in general. Many of these approaches have given rise to software implementations that serve particular audiences with particular needs, leading to a plethora of such tools. Interesting research questions are posed when exploring the ground between these different approaches to diagramming, and these questions become operational challenges in the context of a research programme aimed at developing ‘pluralist’ argument diagramming software—a single tool that supports multiple different theoretical approaches to the analysis of argument. The Araucaria system aims to meet such pluralist goals, by allowing analysis to be conducted in different styles and then providing for translation between them. In this way, a potential is opened up for interchange between different communities.

Keywords: argument diagramming; Beardsley; diagrams; Toulmin; Wigmore

Presented at the workshop on ‘Graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings’ at Cardozo School of Law, New York City, 28–29 January 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.