Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Types of Dialogue and Pragmatic Ambiguity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 32))

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, our goal is theoretical, as we aim at providing an instrument for detecting, analyzing, and solving ambiguities based on the reasoning mechanism underlying interpretation. To this purpose, combining the insights from pragmatics and argumentation theory, we represent the background assumptions driving an interpretation as presumptions. Presumptions are then investigated as the backbone of the argumentative reasoning that is used to assess and solve ambiguities and drive (theoretically) interpretive mechanisms. On the other hand, our goal is practical. By analyzing ambiguities as stemming from different presumptions concerning language or, more importantly, expected communicative roles and goals, we can use communicative misunderstandings as the signal of deeper disagreements concerning mutual expectations or cultural differences. This argumentation-based interpretive mechanism will be applied to the analysis of medical interviews in the area of diabetes care, and will be used to bring to light the sources of misunderstanding and the different presumptions that define distinct cultures. We will consequently illustrate the analytical tools by identifying and distinguishing the various types of ambiguity underlying misunderstandings, and we will address them by describing the communicative intentions ascribed to the ambiguous utterances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We argue that that such different presumptions define distinct cultures, building on Kecskes’s broader notion of culture as “a system of shared beliefs, norms, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another” (Kecskes 2013, 4).

  2. 2.

    Contemporary approaches to language processing point out the importance of the use of prior knowledge to generate expectations about how a discourse will unfold. Context can activate networks of related concepts or event schemas that can be used to process the utterance (Brothers et al. 2015, 135–136).

  3. 3.

    This example has also been discussed in Macagno and Bigi (2017b).

References

  • Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2011. Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25: 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, Gerry, and Jelena Mirković. 2009. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive science 33: 583–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelelli, Claudia. 2004. Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1991. Topics. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, Neeraj, and Colleen McHorney. 2000. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Medical care 38(3): 335–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200003000-00010.

  • Atlas, Jay David. 1989. Philosophy without ambiguity: A logico-linguistic essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, Jay David. 2007. Meanings, propositions, context, and semantical underdeterminacy. In Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: New essays on semantics and pragmatics, ed. Gerhard Preyer, and Georg Peter, 217–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, Jay David. 2008. Presupposition. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 29–52. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch2.

  • Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Radical pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David. 1997. Innuendo. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bench-Capon, Trevor, Paul Dunne, and Paul Leng. 1991. Interacting with knowledge-based systems through dialogue games. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Expert Systems and Applications, 123–140. Avignon: EC2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout, Anne. 1997. Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind 106: 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigi, Sarah. 2011. The persuasive role of ethos in doctor-patient interactions. In Communication and Medicine 8: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v8i1.67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigi, Sarah. 2014a. Key components of effective collaborative goal setting in the chronic care encounter. Communication and Medicine 11: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v11i2.21600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigi, Sarah. 2014b. Healthy reasoning: The role of effective argumentation for enhancing elderly patients’ selfmanagement abilities in chronic care. In Active ageing and healthy living: A human centered approach in research and innovation as source of quality of life, ed. Giovanni Riva, Paolo Ajmone Marsan, and Claudio Grassi, 193–203. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigi, Sarah. 2016. Communicating (with) care. A linguistic approach to the study of interactions in chronic care settings. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brothers, Trevor, Tamara Swaab, and Matthew Traxler. 2015. Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: Prediction takes precedence. Cognition 136: 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunt, Harry. 2000. Dialogue pragmatics and context specification. In Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics, ed. Harry Bunt and William Black, 81–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2005. Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1355–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2011. The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31: 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.560827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, Alessandro. 2013. Explicatures are NOT cancellable. In Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology 2, ed. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 131–151. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, Robyn. 2013. Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In Law and language: Current legal issues, ed. Michael Freeman and Fiona Smith, 15:8–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, Marcelo. 1992. On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In (On) Searle on conversation, ed. Herman Parret, and Jef Verschueren, 35–57. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, Marcelo, and Jerzy Wróblewski. 1988. Transparency and doubt: Understanding and interpretation in pragmatics and in law. Law and Philosophy 7: 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deppermann, Arnulf. 2000. Semantic shifts in argumentative processes: A step beyond the “fallacy of equivocation”. Argumentation 14: 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838727096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunin-Keplicz, Barbara, and Rineke Verbrugge. 2001. The role of dialogue in cooperative problem solving. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense reasoning, New York, eds. Ernest Davis, John McCarthy, Leora Morgenstern, and Raymond Reiter, 89–104. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, Glenn. 2000. Culture and the patient-physician relationship: Achieving cultural competency in health care. The Journal of pediatrics 136: 14–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(00)90043-X.

  • Franklin, Marc, and Daniel Bussel. 1983. The Plaintiff’s Burden in Defamation: Awareness and Falsity. William and Mary Law Review 25: 825–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, Michael. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind. Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001.

  • Giora, Rachel. 2008. Is metaphor unique? In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. Raymond Gibbs, 143–160. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, Rachel, Shir Givoni, Vered Heruti, and Ofer Fein. 2017. The Role of Defaultness in Affecting Pleasure: The Optimal Innovation Hypothesis Revisited. Metaphor and Symbol 32(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul. 1968. Utterer’s meaning, sentence meaning and word-meaning. Foundations of Language 4: 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, Barbara, and Candace Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics 12. MIT Press: 175–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundel, Jeanette K., and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 175–196. The handbook of pragmatics. London: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch8.

  • Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaszczolt, Katarzyna. 1999. Discourse, beliefs and intentions. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2889–2897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan. 2015. Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics 7: 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17: 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, Istvan, and Fenghui Zhang. 2013. On the dynamic relations between common ground and presupposition. In Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology 2, ed. Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 375–395. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_15.

  • Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, ed. Keith Allan and Kasia Jaszczolt, 169–190. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022453.010.

  • Levin, James, and James Moore. 1977. Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive science 1. Elsevier: 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(77)80016-5.

  • Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal logic 28: 102–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2011. The presumptions of meaning: Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic 31: 368–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2012. Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions, 233–265. Argumentation 26. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9232-9.

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2016. Reporting and interpreting intentions in defamation law. In Indirect reports and pragmatics, ed. Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo, 593–619. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8.

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017a. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19: 148–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Sarah Bigi. 2017b. Understanding misunderstanding: Presuppositions and presumptions in doctor-patient chronic care consultations. Intercultural Pragmatics 14: 49–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone. 2016. Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation 30: 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Giovanni Damele. 2013. The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic 33: 361–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, William C. 1988. Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction. Argumentation 2. Springer: 511–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, Peter, and Simon Parsons. 2009. Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. Guillermo Simari, and Iyad Rahwan, 261–280. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, Jacob. 2003. Context and (dis)ambiguity: A pragmatic view. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00139-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, Dennis. 2004. Interpretation in Law. San Diego Law Review 42: 685–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Récanati, François. 1987. Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy. Philosophica 27: 53–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saka, Paul. 2007. How to think about meaning. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samet, Jerry, and Roger Schank. 1984. Coherence and connectivity. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, Roger, and Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten, Barbara, and Ludwien Meeuwesen. 2006. Cultural differences in medical communication: A review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling 64: 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society 5: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 2002. Consciousness and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 2005. Speech acts and illocutionary logic. In Logic, Thought and Action, 109–132. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, Scott. 2008. Philosophical essays, volume 1. Natural language: what it means and how we use it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Moira. 1995. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A review. CMAJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, Richmond. 1990. Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Intentions in communication, ed. Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, 325–364. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, Teun. 1977. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In Cognitive processes in comprehension, ed. Marcel Adam Just and Patricia Carpenter, 3–32. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, Jan Albert. 2001. Ambiguity in a dialectical perspective. Informal Logic 21: 245–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, Jan Albert. 2003. The dialectic of ambiguity. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87: 399–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1995. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1996a. Fallacies arising from ambiguity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1996b. The straw man fallacy. In Logic and argumentation, ed. Johan van Bentham, Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 115–128. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1998. The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas. 2006. Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligence. Pragmatics & Cognition 14: 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.1.03wal.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2007. Types of dialogue, dialectical relevance and textual congruity. Anthropology & Philosophy 8: 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2010. Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24. Springer: 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9157-8.

  • Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Deirdre. 2016. Relevance theory. In The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, ed. Yan Huang. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37.

  • Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.021.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

  2. Dipartimento di Scienze linguistiche e letterature straniere, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Sarah Bigi

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Bigi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. English Department, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Steve Oswald

  2. Institute of French Literature, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Thierry Herman

  3. Section of Language and Information Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jérôme Jacquin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Macagno, F., Bigi, S. (2018). Types of Dialogue and Pragmatic Ambiguity. In: Oswald, S., Herman, T., Jacquin, J. (eds) Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73971-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73972-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation