Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

L'objectif de notre travail est la conception d'un cadre théorique et méthodologique permettant l'aide à la décision au sein d'un modèle de représentation des connaissances, illustré par un cas d'étude issu de la filière céréalière. Le domaine d'application plus particulièrement considéré est la définition de la qualité alimentaire, pour laquelle entrent en jeu différents points de vue (intérêt nutritionnel, qualités gustatives, sécurité sanitaire des produits) et différents acteurs (industriels, chercheurs, citoyens) dont les intentions divergent. La base de notre approche est l'utilisation de systèmes d'argumentation issus de la littérature en IA. Les systèmes d'argumentation sont des cadres formels visant à représenter des arguments, les interactions entre ces arguments, et à déterminer quels énoncés sont inférables par un ensemble d'arguments jugé cohérent, ces énoncés pouvant par exemple correspondre à des croyances ou à des décisions à prendre. L'un des cadres formels les plus abstraits, qui fait référence dans le domaine, est celui proposé par Dung en 1995. Dans ce cadre, un système d'argumentation est défini par un ensemble fini d'arguments et une relation binaire sur cet ensemble, appelée relation d'attaque. On peut également voir un tel système comme un graphe étiqueté dont les sommets sont les arguments et les arcs représentent la relation d'attaque directe. Un argument en "attaque'' un autre s'il existe un chemin de longueur impaire du premier au second, et il le ''défend'' s'il en existe un de longueur paire. Un argument est inférable s'il appartient à un ensemble d'arguments ayant certaines propriétés relatives aux notions d'attaque et de défense. C'est en ce sens que l'acceptabilité des arguments est dite collective. Le système d'argumentation de Dung a été étendu notamment par l'ajout de préférences entre arguments. Celles-ci, agrégées aux attaques, donnent une relation de ''défaite'', changeant le calcul de l'acceptabilité collective des arguments. Ainsi, sur la base de l'acceptabilité collective, nous proposerons une méthode pour déterminer l'équivalence entre deux systèmes d'argumentation afin d'unifier ces systèmes abstraits d'argumentation à base de préférences. Un système contextuel à base de préférences est ainsi proposé (les préférences et les attaques entre arguments ont une validité contextuelle), des méthodes d'agrégations entre attaques et préférences et de fusions entre contextes sont investiguées au regard de la consistance entre arguments collectivement acceptés. La consistance est obtenue lorsque de tels ensembles ne contiennent pas de conflits en termes d'informations véhiculées et de conclusions et/ou de décisions supportées au niveau de leurs arguments. Notre démarche s'appuie sur trois courants bien connus de l'argumentation : nous proposons une vue emboîtée de l'argument répondant aux attentes du courant ''micro'', qui s'attache à définir les structures internes de l'argument; nous proposons de générer des attaques entre arguments basées sur les actions qu'ils soutiennent ou qu'ils rejettent. Ceci nous permet de nous intéresser également aux préoccupations du courant ''macro'' pour le traitement des relations entre arguments en vue du calcul d'une acceptabilité collective. Enfin, nous nous intéressons à certains aspects du courant ''rhétorique'', à savoir la définition d'audiences donnant une force contextuelle à l'argument et générant des préférences. Ce dernier aspect nous permet notamment d'établir des recommandations contextuelles. L'ensemble de la démarche, illustrée au travers d'exemples situationnels et d'un cas d'application, est inclus dans un modèle d'arbitrage argumenté, lui même en partie implémenté dans un formalisme de représentation des connaissances et de raisonnement (les graphes conceptuels).

In this study I investigated the interactions of 25 Grade 8 science students as they learned how to construct oral arguments using the Toulmin Argumentation Pattern framework. I collected the data during three recorded small group discussion sessions during a five week Earth Science unit between February and March of 2011. The first session recorded the students’ discussions prior to receiving either argumentation instruction or the science concept instruction. The second session recorded their discussions after receiving an introduction to argumentation and a scaffold, but not concept instruction. During the three weeks preceding the third session, the students received additional argumentation instruction and completed one-third of the Earth Science unit. The results showed the students collectively made more arguments during each subsequent session. The students’ individual arguments showed a correspondence between their purportedly most familiar topics and the most discussed topics. I also found that when students made counter arguments and/or invited or challenged group members to participate, their discussions contained comparatively more argument elements (claims, data and warrants) than discussions containing predominantly collaborative assertions. The key outcome of this study for developing students’ use of the elements of argumentation during classroom discussions was to recognize and incorporate opportunities for the students to tap into their prior-knowledge. To engage students in this process, the results indicate the importance of creating time for discussions relevant to the curriculum and to the students. / Graduate / 0727 / 0279 / 0714 / brianu@uvic.ca

This thesis reports on a rhetorical study of endorsement editorials published in Canadian newspapers during the spring 2011 federal election. These editorials, intended to encourage readers to support or vote for a candidate or party, draw their persuasive power from a combination of rhetorical genres and appeals. An endorsement editorial expresses a newspaper’s backing of a party or candidate; it may also urge readers to support and vote in a similar manner. Endorsement editorials are a significant area of study because they are usually published only during election campaigns and respond to a perceived exigence or need to address pressing issues. My sample set includes editorials published in English-language daily newspapers: the Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, and Toronto Sun. The Toronto Star published two endorsement editorials, one of which I describe as a “dis-endorsement” to reflect the message to not support a specific political party. This study examines three elements I deem important for successful argumentation: arrangement, argumentative strategy, and audience. I identify seven elements of an endorsement editorial: thesis, endorsement, call-to-action, kairos or time-to-act, evidence, refutation, and context. My study draws on the theoretical frameworks of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca and Stephen Toulmin as well as Kenneth Burke’s concepts of identification and expectation. I illustrate that endorsement editorials reveal the underlying values and beliefs of a newspaper, both reflecting and constructing power relations within society. This dissertation theorizes that endorsement editorials create persuasive arguments by combining deliberative discourse with forensic and epideictic rhetoric. Endorsement editorials debate the expediency of a course of action, in particular electing a party or leader to govern, exemplifying deliberative discourse. But they also employ forensic discourse to justify their decisions on the basis of the past actions of the parties or candidates. In addition, epideictic rhetoric is used to praise or blame political participants. Although logos might be anticipated to predominate in a text dealing with the future of the country, endorsement editorials incorporate all three appeals, with pathos and ethos often the strongest, to produce compelling arguments.

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) has now become all pervasive in society. There is now an expectation that educators will use ICT to support teaching and learning in their classrooms and this position is evident in many curriculum documents and educational policies where the aim is to provide each child with access to ICT. Consequently, and to realise this expectation, it is imperative that the focus on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in education shifts beyond learning about ICT to a focus that is aligned with the pedagogical learning experiences in which students can be immersed. There is a need for deep knowledge building to occur in these environments for our students to be active participants in a society where new technologies are constantly emerging. Hence, there is a need for learning environments that are flexible and respond to the needs of these new students and can adopt new technologies where necessary. In order to explore such an environment that encourages the development of knowledge building, an argumentative framework is necessary. The purpose of the study described in this thesis was to identify argumentation as a process of knowledge building and determine if it occurs in an online discussion forum, which is situated in a blended learning environment. This blended learning environment is typical of many classrooms and is where there is a combination of traditional face-to-face activity with online collaboration. In the case of this study, it is situated within an upper secondary private girls school located in a metropolitan area. The classroom under investigation demonstrates a blending of traditional pedagogy, that of dialectical reasoning and argument, and new technology, through an online discussion forum. The study employed a research design methodology over a six week period, while the analysis was based on an existing social argumentation schema and a new customised schema. As part of the analysis, descriptive statistics were used to determine the students' activity within the online discussion forum and to ascertain how this varied accordingly when certain criteria were changed. This was consistent with the cyclic approach of design research. Pedagogical recommendations were presented which demonstrated the importance that appropriate scaffolding and the role of the teacher plays in the successfulness of a forum. The study also recognised the need for purposeful teaching of argumentation as a process of knowledge building and the need for starter statements that are personally motivating to the students and are authentic and relevant. Argumentation and consequently knowledge building were evident in the findings, though were constrained by the habituated practices of schooling. Similarly the notion of community, while evident, was constrained by the time- and space- dependence of the school environment.

Software systems involving autonomous interacting software entities (or agents) present new challenges in computer science and software engineering. A particularly challenging problem is the engineering of various forms of interaction among agents. Interaction may be aimed at enabling agents to coordinate their activities, cooperate to reach common objectives, or exchange resources to better achieve their individual objectives. This thesis is concerned with negotiation: a process through which multiple self-interested agents can reach agreement over the exchange of scarce resources. In particular, I focus on settings where agents have limited or uncertain information, precluding them from making optimal individual decisions. I demonstrate that this form of bounded-rationality may lead agents to sub-optimal negotiation agreements. I argue that rational dialogue based on the exchange of arguments can enable agents to overcome this problem. Since agents make decisions based on particular underlying reasons, namely their interests, beliefs and planning knowledge, then rational dialogue over these reasons can enable agents to refine their individual decisions and consequently reach better agreements. I refer to this form of interaction as “interested-based negotiation.” (For complete abstract open document)

Zugl.: Augsburg, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2001

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Diss., 2005

Zugl.: Heidelberg, Univ., Diss., 2007

Revised habilitation--Universität Graz, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [362]-398) and index.