Philosophy and Rhetoric (SSA Introductory Tutorial 1) Marcin Koszowy

Transcription

1 Introduction to argumentation theory across disciplines: Philosophy and Rhetoric (SSA Introductory Tutorial 1) Marcin Koszowy Centre for Argument Technology (ARG-tech) Polish Academy of Sciences & Faculty of Law University of Białystok

2 Roadmap Philosophical and Rhetorical Perspective (INTRO TUTORIAL 1) Legal Perspective (INTRO TUTORIAL 2) ARGUMENTATION Psycholinguistic Perspective (INTRO TUTORIAL 4) Computational Perspective: ARGUMENT MINING CORPUS LINGUISTIC (INTRO TUTORIAL 3)

3 Outline Logos in Communication: Argumentation Structures and Schemes Dialectics of Communication: Speakers Moves and Intentions in a Dialogue Rhetorics of Communication: Speaker s Ethos and Pathos (Emotions of the Audience)

4 1. Logos in Communication: Argumentation Structures and Schemes

5 Inferential (Logos) Aspects of Argumentation Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. 5

6 1. Argumentation scheme for the direct ad hominem argument (Walton 2010) Character Attack Premise: a is a person of bad character. Conclusion: a's argument should not be accepted. 6

7 2. Argumentation scheme for the circumstantial ad hominem argument (Walton 2010) Argument Premise: a advocates argument α, which has proposition A as its conclusion. Inconsistent Commitment Premise: a is personally committed to the opposite (negation) of A, as shown by commitments expressed in her/his personal actions or personal circumstances expressing such commitments. Credibility Questioning Premise: a's credibility as a sincere person who believes in his own argument has been put into question (by the two premises above). Conclusion: The plausibility a's argument α is decreased or destroyed. 7

8 3. Argumentation Scheme for the argument from expert opinion (Walton, Reed, Macagno 2008, p. 310) Major Premise: Source E is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A. Minor Premise: E asserts that proposition A is true (false). Conclusion: A is true (false). 8

9 Critical Questions for Evaluating Arguments from Expert Opinion (Walton, Reed, Macagno 2008, p. 310) Expertise Question: How credible is E as an expert source? Field Question: Is E an expert in the field F that A is in? Opinion Question: What did E assert that implies A? Trustworthiness Question: Is E personally reliable as a source? Consistency Question: Is A consistent with what other experts assert? Backup Evidence Question: Is E s assertion based on evidence? 9

10 Critical Questions and Dialogical Aspects of Argumentation Critical Questions are a Manifestation of a Preliminary Dialogical Approach to Argumentative Patterns 10

11 Getting beyond the inferential (logos) approach to argumentation

12 1. Direct Ad Hominem as a Dialogue Move

13 e. MissLovinTheFail said, Wow you re such an uptight douchebag. It was meant to be joke, but I wouldn t expect you to pick up on that. You know, with your total lack of a sense of humor and all. nation-messing-with-an-suv-fail/#comment Direct Ad Hominem in a Dialogue (Budzynska & Reed, 2012) a. MissLovinTheFail said, I ve said it before, and I ll say it again, most women have no business driving a SUV. b. Shuttle said, Because she couldn t have done the same thing in a car. Idiot. c. MissLovinTheFail said, Ahh butthurt Shuttle, you drive one don t you? d. Shuttle said, No. But I can just as easily kill someone with my car as I could with an suv. Wow, you re such a genius.

14 2. Circumstantial Ad Hominem as a Dialogue Move

15 Circumstantial AH in a Dialogue (Koszowy & Budzynska, 2016) a. Captain Crookshank said, The Government are bound, he (the Attorney-General) says, to have this Clause (...) But, when the Attorney-General spoke to this Clause before, he started off by saying that it deals with a form of tax avoidance. I find what he says today hard to reconcile with the normal meaning of tax avoidance, as used in debates on this Bill. b. The Attorney-General said, It is not inconsistent. c. Captain Crookshank said, I should have thought it was.

16 3. Appeal to Expert Opinion as a Dialogue Move

17 Expert Opinion in a Dialogue (Walton & Koszowy, 2017)

18 Expert Opinion in a Dialogue (Walton & Koszowy, 2017)

19 Logos and Beyond in natural language communication only some parts of an argumentation scheme are usually made explicit argumentation schemes, as monological, aren t capable of grasping a dialogue game such as an exchange of ad ignorantiam or authority attacks; ALTHOUGH THERE ARE STRATEGIES OF RESPONDING TO AD ARGUMENTS, THEY ARE ALSO MONOLOGICAL argumentation schemes for ethotic argumentation reduce ethos supports and attacks to premiseconclusion structures

20 Two Possible Research Directions instead of reconstructing the implicit parts of argumentation schemes the explicit bits can be interpreted as dialogue moves Dialectics of Communication (PART 2) some of those dialogue moves suport or attack others character or social position (also via emotions) Rhetorics of Communication (PART 3)

21 2. Dialectics of Communication: Speakers Moves and Intentions in a Dialogue

22 Theoretical Foundations (Budzynska and Reed, 2011)

23 Inference Anchoring Theory, IAT Dialogue: (a) Bob said, p (b) Wilma said, Why p? (c) Bob said, q Argumentation (inference): (Arg1) p because q

24 p Bob said, p transition rule applic. Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q Bob said, q

25 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

26 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

27 Mining Arguments from Dialogue (Budzynska et al. 2014; 2015; 2016)

28 p rule applic. q

29 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

30 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

31 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

32 p asserting Bob said, p challenging transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q

33 Example (Visser et al., 2018) WALLACE: [ ] You support a national right to carry law. Why, sir? TRUMP: [...] In Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, [ ] they have more gun violence than any other city. Presidential Candidates Debates: "Presidential Debate at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas," October 19, Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 33

34

35

36 3. Rhetorics of Communication: Speaker s Ethos and Pathos (Emotions) of the Audience

37 Ethos in political discourse

38 Supporting Ethos

39 Attacking Ethos

40 Ethotic Structures in a Dialogue

41 p asserting Bob said, p challenging Bob has ethos transition rule applic. arguing Wilma said, Why p? transition inst. #2 q asserting inst. #2 Bob said, q Bob has ethos

42 Diversity of Ethos Types

43 Distinguishing Ethos Elements Example 3 Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. Example 4 Mr. Forsyth said, when the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose. 43

44 Distinguishing Ethos Elements Example 3 Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. Example 4 Mr. Forsyth said, when the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose. 44

45 Identifying Pathos Example 3 Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. Pos Example 4 Mr. Forsyth said, when the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose. 45

46 Ethos elements (Aristotle 1991): Practical Wisdom having a sufficient knowledge ability to draw the right conclusions the practical experience ability to produce the right decision Moral Virtue positive morality (character traits) such as calmness, justness, selflessness, gracefulness, nobility, liberality ability to provide the correct information Goodwill giving sound advice to others caring about who they represent being inclusive avoiding unnecessary repetition of information aligning with an audiences values and displaying self sacrifice

47 Distinguishing Ethos Elements Example 3 Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. Argument from Practical Wisdom Example 4 Mr. Forsyth said, when the hon. Gentleman was the Member for part of my constituency, he fled the field because he was scared that he would lose. Conflict from Moral Virtue 47

48 Ethos support and attack 48

49 Types of ethos support & attack 49

50 Analysis of Ethos Annotation & Exploring the Pathos Component

51 Argument Map Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. 51

52 Support Practical Wisdom Mr. Moore said, I bow to my hon. Friend's distinguished past and detailed knowledge of these matters. having sufficient knowledge 52

53 Example 57, Argument Map Mr. Hayes said, Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my hon. Friends admire the fortitude with which he has carried out his duties in Northern Ireland? 53

54 Support Moral Virtue Mr. Hayes said, Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my hon. Friends admire the fortitude with which he has carried out his duties in Northern Ireland? strength of character 54

55 Example 36, Argument Map Mr. Hogg said, Does my right hon. Friend accept that in essence his proposals represent an addition in powers to the district and borough councils, which are in closer contact with the electorate than the existing authorities, and that, that being so, his proposals are an extension, not a diminution, of democracy? 55

56 Support Goodwill Mr. Hogg said, Does my right hon. Friend accept that in essence his proposals represent an addition in powers to the district and borough councils, which are in closer contact with the electorate than the existing authorities, and that, that being so, his proposals are an extension, not a diminution, of democracy? caring about who others represent 56

57 Example 81, Argument Map Mr. Maclennan said, Why is the Minister not illustrating his concern in a more practical way? 57

58 Attack Practical Wisdom Mr. Maclennan said, Why is the Minister not illustrating his concern in more practical way? the (lack of) practical experience 58

59 Example 54, Argument Map Mr. Enoch Powell said, Does the Secretary of State consider that the officials in the Northern Ireland Office, whose disastrous advice he has followed with characteristic selfsatisfaction and obtuseness for the past two and a half years, contemplate with any degree of satisfaction the bloody consequences of their achievements? 59

60 Attack Moral Virtue Mr. Enoch Powell said, Does the Secretary of State consider that the officials in the Northern Ireland Office, whose disastrous advice he has followed with characteristic selfsatisfaction and obtuseness for the past two and a half years, contemplate with any degree of satisfaction the bloody consequences of their achievements? attacking character traits 60

61 Example 31, Argument Map Mr. Wareing said, Is he so hell bent upon his abolition legislation that he ignores the response that is coming from local authorities and other people? 61

62 Attack Goodwill Mr. Wareing said, Is he so hell bent upon his abolition legislation that he ignores the response that is coming from local authorities and other people? caring about who they represent aligning with an audiences values and displaying self sacrifice 62

63 Summary (Subject Matter) Argumentation Schemes: Diversity of Argumentation Patterns RATIONALITY OF THE LOGOS STRUCTURES Philosophy of Language RATIONALITY & EFFECTIVENESS OF DIALOGUE MOVES Rhetorics: Ethos Supports and Attacks & Diversity of Ethos Types: EFFECTIVENESS & RATIONALITY OF PERSUASION MOVES

64 Summary (Methods) towards a coherent ecosystem of philosophicorhetorical devices making sense of large-scale argumentative texts different communication genres such as e.g. political debates, argumentation in the courtroom, and citizen dialogues

65 Selected References Duthie, R., Budzynska, K. & Reed, C. (2016). Mining Ethos in Political Debate. In P. Baroni, M. Stede, & T. Gordon (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), IOS Press, Potsdam, pp Janier, M., Lawrence, J., Reed, C. (2014). OVA+: an Argument Analysis Interface. In S. Parsons, N. Oren, C. Reed, & F. Cerutti (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2014), IOS Press, Pitlochry, pp Koszowy, M. & Walton, D. (2017). Profiles of Dialogue for Repairing Faults in Arguments from Expert Opinion. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 26, ; doi: /LLP Lawrence, J., Visser, J., & Reed, C. (2017). Harnessing Rhetorical Figures for Argument Mining: A Pilot Study in Relating Figures of Speech to Argument Structure. Argument and Computation, 8(3), ; doi: /AAC

66 Further Reading Aristotle (1991). On Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walton, D., Reed. C. and Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, F.A., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2014). Handbook for Argumentation Theory. Springer.