From Theory of Rhetoric to the Practice of Language Use: The Case of Appeals to Ethos Elements

Marcin Koszowy Warsaw University of Technology ; Katarzyna Budzynska ; Martín Pereira-Fariña Universidade de Santiago de Compostela ; Rory Duthie Warsaw University of Technology

Abstract

AbstractIn their bookCommitment in Dialogue, Walton and Krabbe claim that formal dialogue systems for conversational argumentation are “not very realistic and not easy to apply”. This difficulty may make argumentation theory less well adapted to be employed to describe or analyse actual argumentation practice. On the other hand, the empirical study of real-life arguments may miss or ignore insights of more than the two millennia of the development of philosophy of language, rhetoric, and argumentation theory. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology for adapting such theories to serve as applicable tools in the study of argumentation phenomena. Our approach is boththeoretically-informedandempirically-groundedin large-scale corpus analysis. The area of interest are appeals to ethos, the character of the speaker, building upon Aristotle’s rhetoric. Ethotic techniques are used to influence the hearers through the communication, where speakers might establish, but also emphasise, weaken or undermine their own or others’ credibility and trustworthiness. Specifically, we apply our method to Aristotelian theory of ethos elements which identifiespractical wisdom,moral virtueandgoodwillas components of speakers’ character, which can be supported or attacked. The challenges we identified in this case and the solutions we proposed allow us to formulate general guidelines of how to exploit rich theoretical frameworks to the analysis of the practice of language use.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2022-03-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-021-09564-0
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cites in this index (7)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
  5. Argumentation
Show all 7 →
  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
Also cites 27 works outside this index ↓
  1. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation
  2. Baumlin, J.S., and P.L. Scisco, 2018. Ethos and its Constitutive Role in Organizational Rhetoric. In The Hand…
  3. Budzynska, K., M. Janier, C. Reed, and P. Saint-Dizier. 2016. Theoretical foundations for illocutionary struc…
    Argument and Computation  
  4. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 37–46.
    Educational and Psychological Measurement  
  5. Duthie, R. and K. Budzynska. 2018a. A deep modular RNN approach for ethos mining. In Proceedings of the Twent…
  6. El Baff, R., H. Wachsmuth, K. Al Khatib, M. Stede, and B. Stein. 2019. Computational argumentation synthesis …
  7. Goldman, A.I. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  
  8. Habernal, I., H. Wachsmuth, I. Gurevych, and B. Stein. 2018. Before name-calling: Dynamics and triggers of ad…
  9. Hardwig, J. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy 88(12): 693–708.
    Journal of Philosophy  
  10. Hidey, C., E. Musi, A. Hwang, S. Muresan, and K. McKeown. 2017. Analyzing the semantic types of claims and pr…
  11. Hinton, M., and A. Budzyńska-Daca. 2019. A comparative study of political communication in televised pre-elec…
    Research in Language  
  12. Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory
  13. Koszowy, M., and D. Walton. 2019. Epistemic and deontic authority in the argumentum ad verecundiam. Pragmatic…
    Pragmatics and Society  
  14. Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(…
    Biometrics  
  15. Lawrence, J., and C. Reed. 2020. Argument mining: A survey. Computational Linguistics 45(4): 765–818.
    Computational Linguistics  
  16. Mizrahi, M. 2013. Why arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. Informal Logic 33(1): 57–79.
    Informal Logic  
  17. Musi, E., and M. Aakhus. 2019. Framing fracking: Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowled…
    Journal of Argumentation in Context  
  18. Musi, E., D. Ghosh, and S. Muresan. 2016. Towards feasible guidelines for the annotation of argument schemes.…
  19. Pereira-Fariña, M., M. Koszowy, and K. Budzynska. 2022. ‘It was never just about the statue’: Ethos of histor…
  20. Seidel, M. 2014. Throwing the baby out with the water: From reasonably scrutinizing authorities to rampant sc…
    Informal Logic  
  21. Sim, J., and C.C. Wright. 2005. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample s…
    Physical Therapy  
  22. Stede, M., and J. Schneider. 2018. Argumentation Mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. M…
  23. Voormann, H., and U. Gut. 2008. Agile corpus creation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2): 235–251.
    Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory  
  24. Wacholder, N., S. Muresan, D. Ghosh, and M. Aakhus. 2014. Annotating multiparty discourse: Challenges for agr…
  25. Walton, D. 1999. Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems. P…
    Pragmatics & Cognition  
  26. Argumentation Schemes
  27. Wrisley, G. 2019. Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, chapter Ad Homine…