Skip to main content
Log in

Dialogue structure and logical expressivism

Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to develop the implications of logical expressivism for a theory of dialogue coherence. I proceed in three steps. Firstly, certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue are identified. Secondly, I describe a variant of the multi-agent natural deduction calculus that I introduced in Piwek (J Logic Lang Inf 16(4):403–421, 2007) and demonstrate how it accounts for the aforementioned structures. Thirdly, I examine how the aforementioned system can be used to formalise an expressivist account of logical vocabulary that is inspired by Brandom (Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment, 1994; Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism, 2000). This account conceives of the logical vocabulary as a tool which allows speakers to describe the inferential practices which underlie their language use, i.e., it allows them to make those practices explicit. The rewards of this exercise are twofold: (1) We obtain a more precise account of logical expressivism which can be defended more effectively against the critique that such accounts lead to cultural relativism. (2) The formalised distinction between engaging in a practice and expressing it, opens the way for a revision of the theory of dialogue coherence. This revision eliminates the need for logically complex formulae to account for certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barth E., Krabbe E. (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N. (1962) Tonk, Plonk and Plink. Analysis 22(6): 130–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beun R. (2001) On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(1): 37–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. (2000) Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom R. (2008) Between saying and doing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R. (2010) Reply to Bernhard Weiss’s “What is logic?” In B. Weiss & J. Wanderer (Eds.), Reading Brandom on making it explicit (pp. 353–356). London: Routledge

  • de Wit S., Dickinson A. (2009) Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: A case for animal-human translational models. Psychological Research 73: 463–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1925) Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court. (Quoted from the Dover Edition, first published 1958, New York: Dover Publications Inc.)

  • Geach, P., Black, M. (eds) (1952) Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentzen G. (1934) Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen I. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39(2): 176–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Language, logic and computation (Vol. 1). Stanford: CSLI.

  • Gregoromichelaki E., Kempson R., Purver M., Mills G., Cann R., Meyer-Viol W., Healey P. (2011) Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Discourse & Dialogue 2(1): 199–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice H. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J. (eds) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 64–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P., Purver, M., King, J., Ginzburg, J., & Mills, G. (2003). Experimenting with clarification in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Boston, MA.

  • Horton W., Gerrig R. (2005) Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes 40(1): 1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar B. (2007) Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1): 71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibble R. (2006) Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4(2–3): 179–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lance M., Kremer P. (1994) The logical structure of linguistic commitment I: Four systems of non-relevant commitment entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 369–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin J., Moore J. (1988) Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. In: Bond A., Gasser L. (eds) Readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp 385–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson S. (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen P., Lorenz K. (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Löf P. (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Bibliopolis, Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan R. (2005) Language: A biological model. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27(2): 169–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwek P. (2007) Meaning and dialogue coherence: A Proof-theoretic investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(4): 403–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plüss, B. (2010). Non-cooperation in dialogue. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 student research workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Power R. (1979) The organisation of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics 17: 107–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulman, S. (1999). Relating dialogue games to information states. In: Proceedings of the European Speech Communication Association workshop on dialogue and prosody. De Koningshof, The Netherlands, pp. 17–24.

  • Purver, M., & Kempson, R. (2004). Context-based incremental generation for dialogue. In A. Belz, R. Evans, & P. Piwek (Eds.), Natural language generation, Vol. 3123 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (pp. 151–160). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Schegloff E., Sacks H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundholm, G. (1986). Proof theory and meaning. In Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. III, pp. 471–506). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

  • Taylor J. A., Carletta J., Mellish C. (1996) Requirements for belief models in cooperative dialogue. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 6(1): 23–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traum, D., & Larsson, S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 325–353). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss B. (2010) What is logic?. In: Weiss B., Wanderer J. (eds) Reading brandom on making it explicit. Routledge, London, pp 247–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman H., Cross D., Watson J. (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72(3): 655–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Werkausgabe Band 1: Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Tagebücher 1914–1916, Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Piwek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Piwek, P. Dialogue structure and logical expressivism. Synthese 183 (Suppl 1), 33–58 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0015-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0015-5

Keywords

Navigation