Cover not available
Article published In:
Child-Robot Interaction: Design, Evaluation, and Novel Solutions
Edited by Marta Couto, Shruti Chandra, Elmira Yadollahi and Vicky Charisi
[Interaction Studies 23:2] 2022
► pp. 322–340

Talking about moving machines

An argumentative perspective

| University of Vienna | Université libre de Bruxelles
| Université libre de Bruxelles
| LAAS-CNRS Toulouse
| INRIA Paris

Globally, robots can be described as some sets of moving parts that are dedicated to a task while using their own energy. Yet, humans commonly qualify those machines as being intelligent, autonomous or being able to learn, know, feel, make decisions, etc. Is it merely a way of talking or does it mean that robots could eventually be more than a complex set of moving parts? On the one hand, the language of robotics allows multiple interpretations (leading sometimes to misreading or confusion in various contexts). On the other hand, the status of robots is challenged more and more by technical achievements and humans’ own empirical beliefs. In this paper, we follow a linguistic approach in order to explore the relevance of these words when talking about robots. Since we note that the words impose themselves (even if opposed), we discuss the efficiency of a rhetorical strategy in order to work with such a lexicon in robotics. More precisely, we explore the argumentative technique of the dissociation of notions through the study of a practical case: the case of robot lawn mowers versus hedgehogs.

Keywords: rhetoric, ethics, intelligent robots, robot motion, robot autonomy
Article outline
  • I.Introduction
  • II.Talking about robots
    • A.A brief historical perspective
    • B.Can language be neutral?
  • III.From motion perception to language: A link between robots and living beings
    • A.Dots in motion
    • B.Traces in natural language
    • C.Physical stance, design stance and intentional stance
    • D.Is the agentive lexicon relevant when it comes to moving machines?
  • IV.A rhetorical technique leading to decision making
    • A.The dissociation of notions
    • B.A case study: Robots vs. hedgehogs
  • V.Conclusion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 24 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22005.pie
References
Bailly, F., Pouydebat, E., Watier, B., Bels, V., Souères, P.
(2018) “Should mobile robots have a head? A rationale based on behavior, automatic control and signal processing”, Int. Conf. on Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems (Living Machines), Paris, July. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berthoz, A.
(2000) The brain’s sense of movement, vol. 101. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brun, R.
(2018) “Qu’est-ce que la Motion Capture?” In France Université Numérique, editor, MOOC La Gesthotèque, conçu par l’Université Sorbonne Paris Cité.Google Scholar
Cambridge Dictionary
[URL] (accessed February 3, 2021)
Chaminade, T., Rosset, D., Da Fonseca, D., Nazarian, B., Lutscher, E., Cheng, G., et al.
(2012) How Do We Think Machines Think? An fMRI Study of Alleged Competition with an Artificial Intelligence. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 61, 103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dacey, M.
(2017) Philosophy of Science, Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias, 84, 5, pp. 1152–1164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danblon, E.
(2002) Rhétorique et rationalité : essai sur l’émergence de la critique et de la persuasion. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
(2013) The Reason of Rhetoric. Philosophy & rhetoric, vol.46, no. 4, pages 493–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.
(2009) Intentional systems theory. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind, pages 339–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupréel, E.
(1948) Les Sophistes, Ed. Du Griffon, Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Gaudiello, I. & Zibetti, E.
(2016) Learning robotics, with robotics, by robotics: Educational robotics. John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. & Dearin, R.
(2002) Chaim Perelman. SIU Press.Google Scholar
Heider, F., & Simmel, M.
(1944) “An experimental study of apparent behavior”. The American journal of psychology, vol. 57, no. 2, pages 243–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D.
(2011) Thinking, fast and slow, Kindle Edition.Google Scholar
Lotze, R.
(1852) Medicinische psychologie oder physiologie der seele. Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Malinowska, J. K.
(2021) Can I feel your pain? The biological and socio-cognitive factors shaping people’s empathy with social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–15.Google Scholar
Marchesi, S., Ghiglino, D., Ciardo, F., Baykara, E. & Wykowska, A.
(2019) “Do we adopt the Intentional Stance towards humanoid robots?” Frontiers in psychology, vol. 101, page 450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCorduck, P., & Cfe, C.
(2004) Machines who think: A personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial intelligence. CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Brooks, R.
(2007) “Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on preverbal sharing”. Advances in Consciousness Research, vol. 681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, N.
(2010) The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L.
(1969) The new rhetoric.(La nouvelle rhétorique). A treatise on argumentation, vol 1401. Univ of Notre Dame Pr.Google Scholar
Perez-Osorio, J., & Wykowska, A.
(2019) “Adopting the Intentional Stance Towards Humanoid Robots”. In Wording Robotics, Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pieters, C.
(2020) The words of robotics: a rhetorical approach. Automatic. Institut national des sciences appliquées de Toulouse; Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.), Belgium.Google Scholar
Pieters, C., Danblon, E. & Laumond, J.-P.
(2018) “How do humans read robotics? The matter of the lexical ambiguity resolution.” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pieters, C., Danblon, E., & Laumond, J.-P.
(2019) “Beyond the conflict between “Touch” and “Feel” in robotics.” In Wording Robotics, pp. 81–90. Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholl, B. & Tremoulet, P.
(2000) “Perceptual causality and animacy”. Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 4, no. 8, pages 299–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J., Willis, S. et al.
(1995) The construction of social reality. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Southall, J.
(1962)  Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics: Translated from the third german edition. Dover.Google Scholar
Sreenivasa, M., Souères, P., Laumond, J.-P.
(2012) “Walking to Grasp: Modeling of Human Movements as Invariants and an Application to Humanoid Robotics”, IEEE Trans. On Cybernetics, Part A, Vol 991, p1–14, January. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thellman, S., Silvervarg, A. & Ziemke, T.
(2017) “Folkpsychological interpretation of human vs. humanoid robot behavior: exploring the intentional stance toward robots”. Frontiers in psychology, vol. 81, p.1962. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rees, A.
(2008) Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective, volume 131. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar