Marcin Lewiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and the Nova Institute of Philosophy, Nova University of Lisbon. His research applying philosophical concepts to the study of public argumentation has been published in journals, edited volumes and special issues (e.g. Environmental Argumentation, 2019). Mark Aakhus is Professor of Communication at Rutgers University. His scholarship on the relationship among communication, argumentation, and design in digital society has been published in journals, edited volumes and the co-edited volume Perpetual Contact (with James E. Katz, 2002).

'Lewiński and Aakhus provide a detailed and in many ways compelling argument for viewing polylogues involving multiple parties (not monologues or dialogues) as the more fundamental type of communication. Their thesis has important consequences for how we understand argumentative discourses and should command serious attention from scholars and students in a number of related fields.' Christopher Tindale, University of Windsor

• Part I. Seeking, Seeing, and Embracing Polylogue: 1. Seeking polylogue; 2. The Dyadic reduction; 3. Seeing polylogue; 4. Embracing polylogue. Part II. Analyzing, Evaluating, and Designing Polylogue. 5. Descriptive analysis of polylogues; 6. Normative evaluation of polylogues; 7. Prescriptive design of polylogues. 8. Conclusion.

Marcin Lewiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and the Nova Institute of Philosophy, Nova University of Lisbon. His research applying philosophical concepts to the study of public argumentation has been published in journals, edited volumes and special issues (e.g. Environmental Argumentation, 2019). Mark Aakhus is Professor of Communication at Rutgers University. His scholarship on the relationship among communication, argumentation, and design in digital society has been published in journals, edited volumes and the co-edited volume Perpetual Contact (with James E. Katz, 2002).

'Lewiński and Aakhus provide a detailed and in many ways compelling argument for viewing polylogues involving multiple parties (not monologues or dialogues) as the more fundamental type of communication. Their thesis has important consequences for how we understand argumentative discourses and should command serious attention from scholars and students in a number of related fields.' Christopher Tindale, University of Windsor

• Part I. Seeking, Seeing, and Embracing Polylogue: 1. Seeking polylogue; 2. The Dyadic reduction; 3. Seeing polylogue; 4. Embracing polylogue. Part II. Analyzing, Evaluating, and Designing Polylogue. 5. Descriptive analysis of polylogues; 6. Normative evaluation of polylogues; 7. Prescriptive design of polylogues. 8. Conclusion.

Marcin Lewiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and the Nova Institute of Philosophy, Nova University of Lisbon. His research applying philosophical concepts to the study of public argumentation has been published in journals, edited volumes and special issues (e.g. Environmental Argumentation, 2019). Mark Aakhus is Professor of Communication at Rutgers University. His scholarship on the relationship among communication, argumentation, and design in digital society has been published in journals, edited volumes and the co-edited volume Perpetual Contact (with James E. Katz, 2002).

'Lewiński and Aakhus provide a detailed and in many ways compelling argument for viewing polylogues involving multiple parties (not monologues or dialogues) as the more fundamental type of communication. Their thesis has important consequences for how we understand argumentative discourses and should command serious attention from scholars and students in a number of related fields.' Christopher Tindale, University of Windsor

• Part I. Seeking, Seeing, and Embracing Polylogue: 1. Seeking polylogue; 2. The Dyadic reduction; 3. Seeing polylogue; 4. Embracing polylogue. Part II. Analyzing, Evaluating, and Designing Polylogue. 5. Descriptive analysis of polylogues; 6. Normative evaluation of polylogues; 7. Prescriptive design of polylogues. 8. Conclusion.