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.
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
Belnap N. (1962) Tonk, Plonk and Plink. Analysis 22(6): 130–134
Beun R. (2001) On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(1): 37–68
Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Brandom R. (2000) Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Brandom R. (2008) Between saying and doing. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
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
Gentzen G. (1934) Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen I. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39(2): 176–210
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
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
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
Keysar B. (2007) Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1): 71–84
Kibble R. (2006) Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4(2–3): 179–202
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
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
Levinson S. (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399
Lorenzen P., Lorenz K. (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt
Martin-Löf P. (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Bibliopolis, Naples
Millikan R. (2005) Language: A biological model. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27(2): 169–226
Piwek P. (2007) Meaning and dialogue coherence: A Proof-theoretic investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(4): 403–421
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
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
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
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
Weiss B. (2010) What is logic?. In: Weiss B., Wanderer J. (eds) Reading brandom on making it explicit. Routledge, London, pp 247–261
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
Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Werkausgabe Band 1: Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Tagebücher 1914–1916, Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0015-5