Walton, in this book, applies an unconventional method of analyzing fallacies to the study of appeals to emotion. Following good sense and in opposition to views one can find in some textbooks in introductory logic, he denies that such appeals are always fallacious. Accordingly, he examines both how an appeal to emotion can serve to advance an argument and what makes it a fallacy when it is fallacious. His method of analysis draws on ideas from the field of pragmatics in linguistics. He sees arguments as contributions to dialogues and takes the cogency of an argument to depend on the type of dialogue to which it contributes. Since different types of dialogue have different purposes and different rules of engagement, this means that he takes an argument's cogency to be relative to the purpose and rules of the dialogue to which it contributes. Thus, on Walton's method, an argument may be fallacious as a contribution to one type of dialogue and reasonable as a contribution to another. The method differs strikingly from the standard textbook treatment in which models of sound reasoning taken from formal logic are applied to arguments without regard to their practical contexts. And to capture this difference Walton describes his method as \"pragmadialectical\" (p. 16) and the standard treatment as \"deductive-semantic\" (p. 19). The book consists of eight chapters. The middle four, which make up its core, cover four types of appeal to emotion that, in the standard treatment, are typically classified as fallacies of relevance. These, under their familiar Latin rubrics, are argumenta ad populum, ad misericordiam, ad baculum, and ad hominem. In the first two chapters Walton explains his method of analysis and discusses how it applies to two other appeals that are typically classified as fallacies of relevance, appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) and appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The last two chapters contain effluent analyses and commentary. Chapter seven concerns complications that arise when more than one of these appeals occur in a single argument. Chapter eight offers some general, concluding remarks about when in an argument it is reasonable and proper to appeal to pity, say, or popular sentiment and when such an appeal is sophistical and manipulative. In this review, I will concentrate on whether Walton's unconventional analysis of emotional appeals is necessary to uphold his general thesis that not every appeal to emotion is fallacious and to what extent his analysis sheds light on the character of the fallacies to which these appeals are liable. Though his particular analyses in the middle four

The Place of Emotion in Argument

Contents: The Ins and Outs of Translation: A Puzzling Crosslinguistic Riddle - Stepping up from the Bottom Level: The Translation of Words - Multi-word Structures: Translating Phraseological Units (PUs) - Above the Word: The Translation of Grammar - Beyond the Sentence: Exploring the Notion of Context.

ROJO LÓPEZ, Ana María (Alemania, 2009). Step by step: a course in contrastive linguistics and translation

argumentation, (ii) reasoning about trust in multiagent systems, and (iii) reasoning about coalitions in multiagent systems. After my PhD, my research topics gradually evolved from formal computational models of argument to natural models of arguments, where arguments in natural language are considered and mined from heterogeneous sources. I am one of the very first initiators of the research topic, very popular nowadays, called Argument Mining. I have also studied the impact of emotions on the argumentation online debaters express on the Web. These two research lines are highly multidisciplinary, and they have been addressed thanks to a fruitful collaboration with linguists and cognitive scientists. The rationale behind my research work (and more generally behind the whole research activity of the WIMMICS team) is that decision (being them from artificial or human agents) need to be supported and justified through arguments and other factors, like emotions, mental states and trust, and the Web represents a invaluable interaction architecture and information source to be leveraged in order to support decision making and the subsequent justification about such deliberation.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01973555/document

Serena Villata

Papers

Explainable, trustable and emphatic artificial intelligence from formal argumentation theory to argumentation for humans