How do humans read robotics? The matter of the lexical ambiguity resolution

Pieters, Céline; Danblon, Emmanuelle; Laumond, Jean–Paul; Ulb, Laas-Cnrs

doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8594138

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this stage of our research, we already conducted a study on the lexical ambiguity. [17] We showed that the matter of the words used in robotics is not a problem of lexical ambiguity resolution, i.e. where our brain would not be able to solve ambiguity between multiple meanings.…”

Section: About the Epistemic And Rhetorical Problematics Identified Trough The Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…have a great impact on how a scientific research is shaped and consequently, on how people read robotics. [17,23] To explore and better understand the origins of roboticists' own spontaneous conception of language and knowledge is thus all the more important as it may lead to breaking the bond between the experts and the society. Yet, the activity that consists in putting techno-science "into words" is not a matter of public communication essentially.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Roboticists and Reporters: A rhetorical experiment at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (Paris, France)

Pieters¹,

Danblon²,

Laumond³

2021

IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: About the Epistemic And Rhetorical Problematics Identified Trough The Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roboticists and Reporters: A rhetorical experiment at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (Paris, France)

Pieters¹,

Danblon²,

Laumond³

2021

IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intuitive reflection on the language of robotics wavers between some kind of unrest, raised by the fear that an inadequate lexicon or phraseology might lead to category mistakes, and the confidence that common sense, as manifested by rational discourse, will prevent us from indulging in absurd extrapolations. As underlined by Pieters, Danblon and Laumond (2018), the only way to deal with this question adequately consists in taking into account the representational dimension of language. It is my hope that the data envisaged in this contribution, and the analyses presented, may help to better capture the intricate relationships between the many facets of semantic or representational truth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphor, Metonymy, and Personification in the Language of Robotics

Dominicy

2019

Wording Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an approach to meaning that relates the (pseudo-)problems raised by the language of robotics to the fundamental distinction between semantic and representational truth. As shown by Plato's Cratylus or the controversy between Descartes and Arnauld on the "falsity" of ideas, "objective" theories of truth generally neglect this distinction, which cannot be captured by the Fregean dichotomy between "reference" and "sense", and involves two notions of the "world"-the objective one of the "word-as-it-is" and the subjective one of the "world-as-experienced". Relying on a typology of metaphors that emphasizes the difference between "pre-wired" and "non-pre-wired" metaphors, as well as the specificity of those metaphors that are not processed "on line", one can provide arguments that support the thesis that the language of robotics, which bears on artifacts, uses not so much semantic as representational personification produced by either metaphor or metonymy. While metonymy is grounded on rational assignments of intentions, metaphor ensures compactness of thought and expression.

show abstract

“…In general, the language of robotics and artificial intelligence is characterized by vagueness in the sense that it allows multiple interpretations even in biased contexts (Pieters, 2018). Such a characteristic means that the words borrowed from the living have a high representational dimension when used in robotics.…”

Section: A a Brief Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Talking about moving machines

Pieters

Danblon

Souères

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

How do humans read robotics? The matter of the lexical ambiguity resolution

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Roboticists and Reporters: A rhetorical experiment at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (Paris, France)

Roboticists and Reporters: A rhetorical experiment at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (Paris, France)

Metaphor, Metonymy, and Personification in the Language of Robotics

Talking about moving machines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About