The interrogation as a type of dialogue

Recent work in argumentation theory has classified different types of dialogue that represent conversational contexts of argument use. One that has been very little studied is the interrogation. In this analysis, interrogation is classified as a subspecies of information-seeking dialogue, and the goals, conversational rules, participants, and techniques of the interrogation are identified. The result is a normative model of the interrogation. A main problem addressed is whether argumentation in the model can be correct in the model, or should be evaluated as inherently negative. Should it be seen as a kind of degeneration of rational discussion, or can argumentation in a well conducted interrogation be judged as correct and successful in light of the proper aims of this type of dialogue? Included in the paper are analyses of some negotiation tactics, and some deceptive tactics associated with traditional logical fallacies.