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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Talking about moving machines

An argumentative perspective

 | University of Vienna | Université libre de Bruxelles
 | Université libre de Bruxelles
 | LAAS-CNRS Toulouse
 | INRIA Paris
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Vienna.

Published online: 24 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22005.pie
Abstract
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.
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
References (31)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berthoz, A. (2000). The brain’s sense of movement, vol. 101. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dacey, M. (2017). Philosophy of Science, Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias, 84, 5, pp. 1152–1164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The Reason of Rhetoric. Philosophy & rhetoric, vol.46, no. 4, pages 493–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (2009). Intentional systems theory. The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind, pages 339–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dupréel, E. (1948). Les Sophistes, Ed. Du Griffon, Neuchâtel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaudiello, I. & Zibetti, E. (2016). Learning robotics, with robotics, by robotics: Educational robotics. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, A. & Dearin, R. (2002). Chaim Perelman. SIU Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow, Kindle Edition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotze, R. (1852). Medicinische psychologie oder physiologie der seele. Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCorduck, P., & Cfe, C. (2004). Machines who think: A personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial intelligence. CRC Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Brooks, R. (2007). “Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on preverbal sharing”. Advances in Consciousness Research, vol. 681. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nilsson, N. (2010). The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Perez-Osorio, J., & Wykowska, A. (2019). “Adopting the Intentional Stance Towards Humanoid Robots”. In Wording Robotics, Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scholl, B. & Tremoulet, P. (2000). “Perceptual causality and animacy”. Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 4, no. 8, pages 299–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J., Willis, S. et al. (1995). The construction of social reality. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Southall, J. (1962). Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics: Translated from the third german edition. Dover.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Rees, A. (2008). Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective, volume 131. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Eichler, Jürgen, Björn Rulik, Alexander Abazid & Matthias B. Stope
2025. Non-invasive physical plasma improves conventional wound management of cut and bite wounds in wild European hedgehogs. Scientific Reports 15:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue