Chatbots For Social Change/Theory of Conversation/Theorizing Conversation/draft 1

This chapter delves into the historical context of the philosophy of language, tracing its origins and evolution through various cultural and philosophical traditions. It begins by exploring the ancient Indian philosophies of Mimamsa and Nyaya, which advanced early theories about the relationship between language, meaning, and their referents.

The narrative then transitions to a global perspective, highlighting the contributions of Western philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, as well as the insights from Confucius's "Analects", Islamic Golden Age thinkers like Al-Farabi and Avicenna, and traditional African philosophical tenets. The chapter emphasizes the diversity of thought regarding the interplay of language, reality, and truth across different cultures and epochs.

Moving into the 20th century, the focus shifts to the transformative works in the philosophy of language and social interaction. Ludwig Wittgenstein's evolution from the logical structure of language in his early work "Tractatus" to the socially contextual understanding of language in "Philosophical Investigations" is underscored. Alongside Wittgenstein, other influential thinkers such as George Herbert Mead, Edmund Husserl, Erving Goffman, and Alfred Schutz are discussed for their contributions to understanding language within social frameworks.

The chapter concludes with an examination of J.L. Austin's Speech Act Theory, which posits that utterances can perform actions, and breaks down communication into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. This sets the stage for a detailed look at how these theories have informed various aspects of conversation analysis and sociolinguistics, and their application in understanding the nuanced dynamics of everyday interactions.

Key Philosophical Traditions and Theories

• Ancient Indian Philosophy: Mīmāṃsā and Nyaya Schools
• Western Philosophy: Plato, Aristotle
• Eastern Philosophy: Confucius
• Islamic Golden Age: Al-Farabi, Avicenna

Modern Developments

• Philosophical Foundations of Communication and Social Interaction:
  • Ludwig Wittgenstein - Language games and the concept of meaning as use, relevant for natural language processing.
  • George Herbert Mead - Symbolic Interactionism, the basis for understanding social interaction in chatbot design.
  • Erving Goffman - Frame Analysis, useful for chatbot's contextual understanding and response framing.
  • J.L. Austin - Speech Act Theory, essential for understanding how chatbots' utterances perform actions.

• Social Phenomenology and Intersubjectivity:
  • Edmund Husserl - Philosophy of Intersubjectivity, important for designing chatbots that can understand and simulate human-like empathy and shared experiences.
  • Alfred Schutz - Social world phenomenology, providing insights into the everyday life-world that chatbots may need to navigate.

• Microsociological Insights for Chatbot Interaction:
  • Herbert Blumer - Symbolic Interactionism, emphasizing the role of interaction and meaning-making in social change.
  • Harvey Sacks - Conversation Analysis, crucial for chatbot's conversational flow and turn-taking mechanisms.
  • Alfred Schutz, Erving Goffman - Ethnomethodology, informing chatbots on the methods people use to construct social order, potentially guiding AI in understanding societal norms and behaviors.

Implications for Contemporary Linguistics and AI

The insights from these philosophical explorations have profound implications for contemporary linguistics and the development of artificial intelligence, particularly in the realm of chatbot programming. The classification of speech acts and the understanding of the social context of language are crucial for designing AI that can effectively interpret and respond to human communication.

The Ancient History of the Theory of Conversation

The intricate dance of conversation, meaning, and thought has possibly been in play since the dawn of human cognition. It's evident in the rich tapestry of philosophical traditions spanning the vast expanse of human history and culture.

In ancient India, the Mīmāṃsā and Nyaya Schools stand out as some of the pioneering traditions that developed an intricate philosophy of language. These schools delved deep into the intricacies of the relationship between words, the meanings they hold, and the tangible or intangible objects they depict.

Globally, this investigation into language and thought wasn't confined to India. Icons of Western philosophy like Plato and Aristotle, the profound "Analects" of Confucius, the luminary philosophers during the Islamic Golden Age, and the sagas from traditional African philosophy all enriched this vast realm of understanding. The sheer volume and diversity of thought cultivated by these thinkers are simply awe-inspiring.

A cursory glance at these ancient philosophical discourses might give one the impression that they universally championed the existence of an ethereal realm of unchangeable 'Truths', detached from our mundane experiences – a notion reminiscent of Plato's theory of forms. However, painting all these diverse traditions with such a broad brush would be an injustice. While many ancient philosophical systems did demarcate the visible from a deeper, more profound reality, the subtleties of these distinctions are unique to each culture and philosopher. Each tradition unfurled its distinct perceptions of truth, reality, and how both interweave with language and thought.

For instance, while Plato's theory of forms proposed an eternal realm of perfect archetypes, Aristotle took a more empirical approach, focusing on the tangible realities and their inherent potentials. In the East, Confucius's "Analects" emphasized the significance of virtue and righteous action in correspondence to the 'Way', rather than abstract truth. Similarly, during the Islamic Golden Age, luminaries like Al-Farabi and Avicenna explored the nexus of divine intellect, logic, and the human soul, which presented a confluence of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Islamic theology. Traditional African philosophy, rich in its diversity, places great emphasis on the power of the spoken word, the profound significance of naming, and the wisdom encapsulated in proverbs.

20th Century - Understanding and Society

The 20th century's philosophical landscape was a fertile ground for reimagining the nexus between language and society. This period, often heralded as a 'linguistic turn,' saw figures like Wittgenstein, Husserl, and Mead, among others, weaving a rich tapestry of thought that continues to inform contemporary discourse.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, initially entrenched in the logical positivism of his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus," later diverged into the more nuanced terrain of ordinary language philosophy. His seminal "Philosophical Investigations" introduced the concept of 'language games,' underscoring that language is an activity, contingent upon various 'forms of life.' This pivot from a rigid logical structure to a fluid social activity challenged the very foundations of semantic theory and opened a dialogue with other contemporary thinkers.

While Wittgenstein's philosophical odyssey was marked by the realization that language is steeped in the praxis of life, George Herbert Mead's Symbolic Interactionism was concurrently setting the stage for a sociological understanding of language. Mead's insight that human consciousness arises from social interaction—particularly through symbolic communication like gestures and language—complemented Wittgenstein's later views. However, where Wittgenstein emphasized the variability of language's function, Mead focused on the genesis of meaning through social acts, such as the simple yet profound exchange between a child pointing and a caregiver naming the object. This interplay of symbols forms the bedrock of shared understanding, a concept further crystallized by Herbert Blumer. Blumer's articulation of Symbolic Interactionism, with its emphasis on the subjective interpretation of social symbols, provided a sociological counterpoint to the philosophical musings of his time.

Edmund Husserl, a contemporary of Mead, was not content to leave the understanding of language in the realm of the empirical. His forays into phenomenology sought to uncover the structures of consciousness that enable intersubjectivity. Husserl posited that our perception of the world is inherently interwoven with our interpretation of others' intentions, a process facilitated by empathy. This mutual constitution of meaning extends beyond mere empathic connections to form a shared objectivity—a concept that resonates with Wittgenstein's later work, albeit through a phenomenological lens.

Yet, the contributions of Alfred Schutz and Erving Goffman, initially mentioned but not elaborated upon, are indispensable in this discourse. Schutz's phenomenology of the social world extended Husserl's ideas, exploring how individuals construct a reality through shared experiences. His work delves into the deep structures of social interaction, providing a bridge between Husserl's abstract theorizations and the concrete social dynamics studied by sociologists.

Erving Goffman, with his dramaturgical analysis, offered a vivid tableau of the performative aspects of social life. His insights into how individuals present themselves in everyday interactions, managing impressions much like actors on a stage, brought a new dimension to the understanding of language and interaction. Goffman's work underscores the complexity of social encounters, where language is not just a medium of communication but also a tool for identity construction and social navigation.

In integrating these perspectives, we begin to see a more cohesive picture of language as a dynamic force, shaped by and shaping the social fabric. The interplay of Wittgenstein's philosophical revelations, Mead's symbolic interactions, Husserl's intersubjective structures, Schutz's social phenomenology, and Goffman's dramaturgical model presents a multidimensional view of language. Each, in their way, contributes to a deeper understanding of the intricate dance between language and the social world.

As we venture further into the 21st century, these theories find new relevance in the digital age, where communication technologies have created novel forms of social interaction and language use. The challenge now lies in applying these rich philosophical legacies to understand and navigate the evolving landscape of human interaction, both online and offline.

Speech-act Theory

J.L. Austin initially wondered about what he termed 'performative sentences,' utterances that, by their very nature, carry out an action. For instance, consider a seemingly simple yet profound act of speech: when someone says "I do" during a wedding ceremony, or proclaims "I promise...". These aren't just words; they are actions in themselves. By saying them, something is being accomplished or performed.

However, as he progressed in his lectures, a revelation dawned upon him: every utterance, in some way or another, is performative. This led Austin to move away from the strict delineation of performative sentences, and instead, he embarked on framing a comprehensive theory of speech acts (Huang, 2014, p. 126). In this journey, he introduced a tripartite distinction to shed light on the mechanics of utterances.

Firstly, there's the 'locution,' which is the actual act of making an utterance — the physical production of sounds or words. But what gives this utterance its depth is the 'illocutionary act'. This denotes the intended function or purpose behind the utterance, or simply put, what the speaker aims to achieve by saying those words. Is it a command? A request? A declaration? The illocutionary act captures this essence.

However, words aren't solely bound by the speaker's intent. They reverberate in the ears of the listener and elicit reactions. This brings us to the 'perlocutionary effect,' which signifies the impact or outcome an utterance engenders in its recipient. For instance, the words might inspire, sadden, surprise, or provoke the listener (Huang, 2014, p. 128).

In essence, Austin's Speech Act Theory unraveled the multilayered dynamics of language. Words aren't merely words; they are actions, intentions, and catalysts of responses, weaving a complex dance of communication that shapes human interaction.

From the foundational insights of Austin's Speech Act Theory, a cascade of classifications sprang forth. These categories now form the bedrock for contemporary linguists and chatbot programmers alike, aiding in their analysis, understanding, and design of communication models. For instance, consider the following widely accepted terminological division of speech-acts:

1. Constatives: These utterances are where the speaker essentially aligns themselves with a particular assertion or stance. Examples include answering, claiming, confirming, denying, disagreeing, and merely stating.
2. Directives: With these, the speaker is essentially influencing or guiding the addressee towards a specific action. This category encapsulates advising, asking, forbidding, inviting, ordering, and requesting.
3. Commissives: Here, the emphasis is on the future, as the speaker commits to a forthcoming course of action.
4. Acknowledgements: These are perhaps the most social in nature. Through them, the speaker communicates their feelings or stance towards the listener concerning a social interaction. Apologizing, greeting, thanking, and accepting an acknowledgement fall into this realm.

Frames

Building upon this, both ethnomethodology, a method of studying human interaction, and Schutz's philosophy hinge on the 'taken-for-granted'—those shared, unspoken assumptions that individuals in a society hold.

Erving Goffman expanded this idea through his concept of "frames." These are foundational assumptions that govern our actions and interactions, providing context and meaning to them.

Conversation Analysis and Sociolinguistics

In this complex maze of categories, we see the beautiful confluence of the theoretical aspects of language philosophy with the practical intricacies of meaning representation and conversation analysis. Delving deeper, Conversation Analysis, a field pioneered by Harvey Sacks, focuses intensely on the minutiae of everyday interactions. It's not just about the words we say, but how we say them. Every "um," "ah," the cadence of a sentence, every deliberate pause or tonal inflection, become subjects of profound scrutiny. These seemingly inconspicuous elements are often windows into the larger societal constructs in which the speech act is nestled. By meticulously dissecting these nuances, researchers can decode the underlying social architectures that guide human communication. Some intriguing findings from Conversation Analysis include:

• Overlaps and interruptions in speech often denote power dynamics or cultural norms.
• Pauses can indicate uncertainty, the need for emphasis, or the expectation of a response.
• Repairs, where a speaker corrects themselves, can shed light on self-awareness and the drive for clarity or accuracy in specific contexts.

Branching out, fields like Interactional Sociolinguistics bring more layers to the conversation. For instance, the act of code-switching, where individuals alternate between different linguistic codes (often languages or dialects) in a single conversation, becomes a rich area of study. By analyzing these shifts, researchers can discern the multifaceted sociocultural spheres individuals navigate. It's not just about communicating a message but also about asserting identity, affiliating with certain groups, or even negotiating societal positions. Through these subtleties in communication, we again glimpse the vast tapestry of society mirrored in our everyday interactions.

Conclusion

In wrapping up, the crux of these explorations into the philosophy of language in the 20th century is that humans are not solitary actors. We co-create language and meaning, constructing intricate ontologies that provide a scaffold to our world. These structures are birthed in our interactions, nurtured and perpetuated by societal institutions, and inherently recognize the existence of these shared understandings in the minds of fellow humans. Our world, as we know it, is a collective tapestry woven from myriad threads of shared experiences, symbols, and meanings.

References

I'm not certain how to do references. The following seems a bit ridiculous, that I'd have to convert all my references to this dumb format. Why didn't they just use .bib format instead?