In the field of computational argument quality assessment, logic and dialectic are essential dimensions used to measure the quality of argumentative texts. Both of them have found their way into the field due to their importance to argumentation theory. We trace the development of core logical concepts of validity and soundness from their first use in argumentation theory to their understanding in state-of-the-art research. We show how, in the course of this development, dialectical considerations have taken center stage, at the cost of the logical perspective. Then, we take a closer look at the quality dimensions used in the field of computational argument quality assessment. Based on an analysis of prior empirical work in this field, we show how methodological considerations from argument theory can benefit state-of-the-art methods in computational argument quality assessment. We propose an even clearer separation between the two quality dimensions not only in regards to their definitions, but also in regards to the granularity at which the argumentative text is being annotated and assessed.

Do LLMs fall prey to Harnad’s symbol grounding problem (SGP), as it has recently been claimed? We argue that this is not the case. Starting out with countering the arguments of Bender and Koller (2020), we trace the origins of the SGP to the computational theory of mind (CTM), and we show that it only arises with natural language when questionable theories of meaning are presupposed. We conclude by showing that it would apply to LLMs only if they were interpreted in the manner of how the CTM conceives the mind, i.e., by postulating that LLMs rely on a version of a language of thought, or by adopting said questionable theories of meaning; since neither option is rational, we conclude that the SGP does not apply to LLMs.

In this paper, we focus on the ability of large language models (LLMs) to accommodate different pragmatic sentence types, such as questions, commands, as well as sentence fragments for natural language inference (NLI). On the commonly used notion of logical inference, nothing can be inferred from a question, an order, or an incomprehensible sentence fragment. We find MNLI, arguably the most important NLI dataset, and hence models fine-tuned on this dataset, insensitive to this fact. Using a symbolic semantic parser, we develop and make publicly available, fine-tuning datasets designed specifically to address this issue, with promising results. We also make a first exploration of ChatGPT’s concept of entailment.

In linguistics, there are two main perspectives on negation: a semantic and a pragmatic view. So far, research in NLP on negation has almost exclusively adhered to the semantic view. In this article, we adopt the pragmatic paradigm to conduct a study of negation understanding focusing on transformer-based PLMs. Our results differ from previous, semantics-based studies and therefore help to contribute a more comprehensive – and, given the results, much more optimistic – picture of the PLMs’ negation understanding.

In this article, we explore the potential and challenges of applying transformer-based pre-trained language models (PLMs) and statistical methods to a particularly challenging, yet highly important and largely uncharted domain: normative discussions in tax law research. On our conviction, the role of NLP in this essentially contested territory is to make explicit implicit normative assumptions, and to foster debates across ideological divides. To this goal, we propose the first steps towards a method that automatically labels normative statements in tax law research, and that suggests the normative background of these statements. Our results are encouraging, but it is clear that there is still room for improvement.