Argumentation theory involves the analysis of naturally occurring argument, and one key tool employed to this end both in the academic community and in teaching critical thinking skills to undergraduates is argument diagramming. By identifying the structure of an argument in terms of its constituents and the relationships between them, it becomes easier to critically evaluate each part of an argument in turn. The task of analysis and diagramming, however, is labor intensive and often idiosyncratic, which can make academic exchange difficult. The Araucaria system provides an interface which supports the diagramming process, and then saves the result using AML, an open standard, designed in XML, for describing argument structure. Araucaria aims to be of use not only in pedagogical situations, but also in support of research activity. As a result, it has been designed from the outset to handle more advanced argumentation theoretic concepts such as schemes, which capture stereotypical patterns of reasoning. The software is also designed to be compatible with a number of applications under development, including dialogic interaction and online corpus provision. Together, these features, combined with its platform independence and ease of use, have the potential to make Araucaria a valuable resource for the academic community.

www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/ staff/creed/

This paper presents an approach towards the definition of a formal framework for rhetorical argumentation. Before describing the competence theory behind the framework, we introduce the notion of rhetorical argument, and describe the New Rhetoric, a well known theory in the philosophy of argumentation, upon which our work is based. 1

of the International Conference on Computational Science. The contributors to the workshop represent, in their backgrounds, the diversity of fields upon which the focus of the event draws. As a result, this paper aims not only to introduce the accepted papers, but also to provide a background that will be accessible to researchers in the various fields, and to sit each work into a coherent context. 1

A growing body of recent work in informal logic investigates the process of argumentation. Among other things, this work focuses on the ways in which individuals attempt to understand written or verbalised arguments in light of the fact that these are often presented in forms that are incomplete and unmarked. One of its aims is to develop general procedures for natural language argument recognition and reconstruction. Our aim here is to draw on this growing body of knowledge in informal logic in order to take preliminary steps towards developing an architecture for computer systems that are able to recognise and reconstruct natural language arguments. This architecture aims to structure research of an applied and computational nature that strives to implement linguistic systems of various sorts, and to analyse problems in a way that both yields manageable and relatively independent components and also highlights how implementations can interact with existing resources from natural language processing.

This paper focuses on dialoguing environments where agents need to exchange evaluating judgments on particular topics, as opposed to discuss about the truth or falsity of propositions. The paper argues that rhetorical argumentation is an appropriate metaphor to model these situations, and presents a framework based on a well established theory from the philosophy of argumentation. The framework is presented, and some examples are given that show the potentialities of the characterisation.