Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse

被引:0
作者
Mathilde Janier
Chris Reed
机构
[1] University of Dundee,School of Computing
来源
Argumentation | 2017年 / 31卷
关键词
Argument analysis; Mediation; Discourse; Inference Anchoring Theory;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions quicker and more efficient. For this, we need tools for close analysis of mediation discourse in order to explore the argumentative activity in depth, and ultimately get an accurate image of how dialogues unfold in this particular context. This paper therefore aims at laying the foundations of a theory of close analysis for discourse in dispute mediation. Theories provided by the literature serve as a basis for argumentative analyses of transcripts of mediation sessions in order to deliver a clear image of the argumentative structure. Analyses of the argumentative strategies in mediation discourse will allow for the development of a dialogue protocol that can be used to develop operational models which can be embodied in software to help make the mediation process easier and more effective.
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 82
页数:37
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
Aakhus M(2003)Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation Argumentation 17 265-290
[2]  
Bellucci E(2005)Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: A case study of the Family-Winner system Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 233-271
[3]  
Zeleznikow J(2003)Electronic negotiations: Foundations, systems and experiments—introduction to the special issue Group Decision and Negotiation 12 25-88
[4]  
Bichler M(2000)Critical discourse analysis Annual Review of Anthropology 29 447-466
[5]  
Kersten G(2006)Towards an argument interchange format The Knowledge Engineering Review 21 293-316
[6]  
Weinhardt C(1998)Are we ready for mediation in cyberspace? Brigham Young University Law Review 1998 1305-1358
[7]  
Blommaert J(1997)Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions American Sociological Review 62 151-170
[8]  
Bulcaen C(2003)How do you write “Yes”?: A study of the effectiveness of online dispute resolution Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20 261-286
[9]  
Chesveñar C(1996)Decision analysis as a mediator’s tool Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1 113-137
[10]  
McGinnis J(2002)Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree Journal of Pragmatics 34 1403-1426