What Do We Know About the World? Rhetorical and Argumentative Perspectives

his book consists of selected papers delivered at “First International Conference on Rhetoric in Croatia: the Days of Ivo Škarić” in May, 2012, and subsequently revised for publication. Through a variety of different routes, the papers explore the role of rhetoric and argumentation in various types of public discourse and present interdisciplinary work connecting linguists, phoneticians, philosophers, law experts and communication scientists in the common ground of rhetoric and argumentation

A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making

Decision-making behavior is studied in many very different fields, from medicine and eco- nomics to psychology and neuroscience, with major contributions from mathematics and statistics, computer science, AI, and other technical disciplines. However the conceptual- ization of what decision-making is and methods for studying it vary greatly and this has resulted in fragmentation of the field. A theory that can accommodate various perspectives may facilitate interdisciplinary working. We present such a theory in which decision-making is articulated as a set of canonical functions that are sufficiently general to accommodate diverse viewpoints, yet sufficiently precise that they can be instantiated in different ways for specific theoretical or practical purposes. The canons cover the whole decision cycle, from the framing of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and background knowledge of the decision-maker to the formulation of decision options, establishing preferences over them, and making commitments. Commitments can lead to the initiation of new decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate reasoning about previous decisions and the rationales for them, and lead to revising or abandoning existing commitments. The theory situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem solving, planning, and collaborative decision-making. The canonical approach is assessed in three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, and decision engineering

Action Research and Autonomous Language Learning in the Age of Cybergenres

In this special issue of CORELL, we will outline the current positions of our research group GIAPEL with regard to the multidimensional transformation that the ICT (Information and Communication Technologies)4 exert on the three vertices of the classical didactic triangle, that is the interaction between learners, teacher and content We will also be looking at how the group approaches the new problems that arise in the field of educational mediation and action research in the teaching-learning of languages, which is seen as a dialogue between teachers and learners as subjects and agents of social practices within a particular contex

Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild

This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and goals. Deductively valid inferences remain a limiting case of such reasoning. In view of these insights, it may appear less surprising that allegedly “irrational” behavior can regularly be produced in experimental settings that expose subjects to standardized reasoning tasks

Tweeting the World a Better Place: Motivations and Values Underpinning the Creation of a Digital Cosmopolitan Persona

While the reputation of the platform Twitter was severely dented during the presidency of President Donald Trump, who often retweeted far-right content, this article engages from the argumentative assumption that Twitter is an inherently cosmopolitan online space, both in terms of statements found there and of the lived experience of users on the platform itself. Cosmopolitanism is understood as a normative concept and as a descriptive term for increasing cultural interconnectedness. Twitter users may engage in pursuing liberal aims by taking responsibility for or identifying with all humanity, and thus enact the more conceptual ideas of cosmopolitanism into pragmatic and viral utterances. They may also be deemed cosmopolitan influencers. Based on qualitative interviews with ten purposely selected Twitter users, it is argued that the motivation behind such online political engagement is chiefly societal and activist, and stems from a desire to change society and, indeed, to “give back to society”. Tweeters are guided by an array of values, such as authenticity, solidarity, justice and equality, and freedom of expression. These socially-engaged Twitter users also often see themselves as exceptional, and able to view social developments others cannot see. The data shows that positive reinforcing as well as negative discouraging feedback plays a crucial role and gives hints for the promotion of Cosmopolitan Twitter

'Tell Us Only What You Know': Evidentiality in the Discourse of Participants in Spanish Trials

El objetivo de esta propuesta es explorar el uso de la evidencialidad en los juicios españoles y su relación con las convenciones del género y los roles de los participantes en estos eventos discursivos. Para ello, basamos nuestro estudio en un análisis cuantitativo-cualitativo de un corpus transcrito de ensayos orales en español. La evidencialidad es una categoría semántico-funcional que incluye dispositivos lingüísticos que marcan la fuente de información detrás de las declaraciones del hablante. El marcado explícito de la fuente no es obligatorio en español; sin embargo, en géneros específicos (legal, parlamentario y académico), se convierte en una poderosa herramienta argumentativa para negociar la validez de las ideas. Analizamos cómo los diferentes participantes en los ensayos hicieron uso de expresiones evidenciales. Se puede observar que los hablantes con conocimiento experto sobre las convenciones de género (juristas) emplearon la evidencialidad de manera diferente a la forma en que lo hicieron los participantes laicos. Se pueden observar algunas diferencias a nivel de los tipos de evidencialidad. Por ejemplo, las inferencias genéricas y el informe de leyes y guiones son típicos del discurso de los juristas, mientras que los participantes legos, en particular los testigos, se refirieron más a menudo a información basada en la observación. Además, nuestro análisis sugirió que los juristas eran más propensos a explotar las construcciones probatorias con fines argumentativos o estratégicos. Por ejemplo, el razonamiento lógico basado en información supuestamente conocida o compartida puede usarse para degradar el compromiso del hablante o para mitigar y atenuar el desacuerdo. Se pueden observar algunas diferencias a nivel de los tipos de evidencialidad. Por ejemplo, las inferencias genéricas y el informe de leyes y guiones son típicos del discurso de los juristas, mientras que los participantes legos, en particular los testigos, se refirieron más a menudo a información basada en la observación. Además, nuestro análisis sugirió que los juristas eran más propensos a explotar las construcciones probatorias con fines argumentativos o estratégicos. Por ejemplo, el razonamiento lógico basado en información supuestamente conocida o compartida puede usarse para degradar el compromiso del hablante o para mitigar y atenuar el desacuerdo. Se pueden observar algunas diferencias a nivel de los tipos de evidencialidad. Por ejemplo, las inferencias genéricas y el informe de leyes y guiones son típicos del discurso de los juristas, mientras que los participantes legos, en particular los testigos, se refirieron más a menudo a información basada en la observación. Además, nuestro análisis sugirió que los juristas eran más propensos a explotar las construcciones probatorias con fines argumentativos o estratégicos. Por ejemplo, el razonamiento lógico basado en información supuestamente conocida o compartida puede usarse para degradar el compromiso del hablante o para mitigar y atenuar el desacuerdo. se refiere más a menudo a información basada en la observación. Además, nuestro análisis sugirió que los juristas eran más propensos a explotar las construcciones probatorias con fines argumentativos o estratégicos. Por ejemplo, el razonamiento lógico basado en información supuestamente conocida o compartida puede usarse para degradar el compromiso del hablante o para mitigar y atenuar el desacuerdo. se refiere más a menudo a información basada en la observación. Además, nuestro análisis sugirió que los juristas eran más propensos a explotar las construcciones probatorias con fines argumentativos o estratégicos. Por ejemplo, el razonamiento lógico basado en información supuestamente conocida o compartida puede usarse para degradar el compromiso del hablante o para mitigar y atenuar el desacuerdo

Naturalism and Process Ontology for Rhetorical Theory and Methodology: Reconsidering the Ideological Tautology

Rhetorical Theory and Criticism primarily features modes of close reading that reconstructs the meaning of a text by constructing meaning through contingent textual moments within a theoretical perspective, typically ideological criticism. The dominant mode of ideological critique projects ideology as an anterior and universal cause; this projection strips individual and group agency from within various systems by totalizing them under one system. I strive to answer how we can preserve descriptive acuity while opening and exploiting contingent gaps to make scholarship more efficacious for social justice. Chapter one explores the inevitability of infinite regress in response to problems of vagueness endemic to the philosophical enterprise. Chapter two explores Bergson’s Retrospective Illusion: strict modes of ontological necessity in a transcendental reasoning pattern produce tautological ontologies in which an effect becomes projected backwards as universal but, ultimately, illusory cause. Chapter three maps out Bergson’s solution to the “Retrospective Illusion” and names it the “Prospective Illusion.” In short, chains of sufficient reasoning are projected out towards tendencies in becoming such that universals are always in construction and never fully actual. Ontologies founded upon spatial necessity are replaced by a process ontology closely attuned to scientific process that folds space and time topologically into tendential becoming. Chapter four applies both illusions to rhetorical theory in its ideological and new materialist modes to argue for the usefulness of both models in breaking rhetorical theory out of its tacit methodological reliance upon reconstructive close reading and by re-evaluating some of rhetorical theory’s ontological assumptions. The project concludes with prospective directions in methodology

A Review of Natural Language Processing Research

Natural language processing (NLP) is a theory-motivated range of computational techniques for the automatic analysis and representation of human language. NLP research has evolved from the era of punch cards and batch processing (in which the analysis of a sentence could take up to 7 minutes) to the era of Google and the likes of it (in which millions of webpages can be processed in less than a second). This review paper draws on recent developments in NLP research to look at the past, present, and future of NLP technology in a new light. Borrowing the paradigm of ‘jumping curves’ from the field of business management and marketing prediction, this survey article reinterprets the evolution of NLP research as the intersection of three overlapping curves-namely Syntactics, Semantics, and Pragmatics Curves- which will eventually lead NLP research to evolve into natural language understanding