Abstract
In a recent contribution in this journal, Sascia Pavan proposed a new game theoretic approach to explain generalized conversational implicatures in terms of general principles of rational behavior. His approach is based on refining Nash equilibrium by a procedure called iterated admissibility. I would like to strengthen Pavan’s case by sketching an epistemic interpretation of iterated admissibility, so as to further our understanding of why iterated admissibility might be a good approximation of pragmatic reasoning. But the explicit epistemic view taken here also points to some shortcomings of his approach in comparison to rivaling accounts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battigalli P. (2006) Rationalization in signaling games: Theory and applications. International Game Theory Review 8(1): 67–93
Battigalli P., Siniscalchi M. (2002) Strong belief and forward induction reasoning. Journal of Economic Theory 106: 356–391
Benz A. (2012) Errors in pragmatics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21(1): 97–116
Blume L., Brandenburger A., Dekel E. (1991a) Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty. Econometrica 59(1): 61–79
Blume L., Brandenburger A., Dekel E. (1991b) Lexicographic probabilities and equilibrium refinements. Econometrica 59(1): 91–98
Brandenburger A., Friedenberg A., Keisler H. J. (2008) Admissibility in games. Econometrica 76(2): 307–352
Davidson D. (1973) Radical interpretation. Dialectica 27: 313–328
Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. PhD Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Franke M. (2011) Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semantics & Pragmatics 4(1): 1–82
Franke M., de Jager T., van Rooij R. (2012) Relevance in cooperation and conflict. Journal of Logic and Computation 22(1): 23–54
Franke, M., & Jäger, G. (2014). Pragmatic back-and-forth reasoning. In S. P. Reda (Ed.), Semantics, pragmatics and the case of scalar implicatures. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics Language and Cognition. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Geurts B. (2010) Quantity implicatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Goodman N. D., Stuhlmüller A. (2013) Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 173–184
Hobbs J. R., Stickel M., Martin P. (1993) Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63: 69–142
Horn, L. R. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Shiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Jäger, G. (2011). Game-theoretical pragmatics. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Handbook of logic and language (pp. 467–491). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jäger, G. (2013). Rationalizable signaling. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9462-3.
Jäger, G., & Ebert, C. (2009). Pragmatic rationalizability. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 1–15)
Pavan S. (2013) Scalar implicatures and iterated admissibility. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 261–290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Franke, M. On admissibility in game theoretic pragmatics. Linguist and Philos 37, 249–256 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-014-9148-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-014-9148-6