The interpretation of questions in dialogue
| Abstract | A semantic framework for interpreting dialogue should provide an account of the content that is mutually accepted by its participants. The acceptance by one agent of another’s contribution crucially involves the theory of what that contribution means; A’s acceptance of B’s contribution means that the content of B’s contribution must be integrated into A’s extant commitments.1 For assertions, traditionally assumed to express a proposition formalised as a set of possible worlds, it was clear how the integration should go: acceptance meant intersecting the newly accepted proposition with the set of worlds representing the content of the agent’s prior commitments. Dynamic semantics (e.g., Asher (1989)) refined this picture by replacing intersection with the operation of dynamic update. The way to treat the negative counterpart of acceptance—namely, rejection—is also clear in principle: A s rejection of B’s assertion means that the negation of the content of B’s contribution should be integrated with the content of A’s prior commitments. However, acceptance and rejection don’t just happen with assertions. These speech acts can happen with questions as well. That is, an agent can choose to address the issues raised by the questioner; he can also choose to reject them. The explicit acceptance of a question can be conveyed by providing a direct answer or by an explicit admittance that one doesn’t know an answer; explicit rejection by uttering I won’t answer. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPatrick Maher (1992). Acceptance in Bayesian Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:153 - 160.
Heidi Russell (2010). Efficacious and Sufficient Grace. Philosophy and Theology 22 (1/2):353-372.
Barbara Abbott (2008). Presuppositions and Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):523-538.
Andreas Herzig, Tiago de Lima & Emiliano Lorini (2009). On the Dynamics of Institutional Agreements. Synthese 171 (2).
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (2011). Reasoning Dynamically About What One Says. Synthese 183 (S1):5-31.
Raymond Dacey (1978). A Theory of Conclusions. Philosophy of Science 45 (4):563-574.
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (1998). Questions in Dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (3):237-309.
Anna Gomolińska (1998). On the Logic of Acceptance and Rejection. Studia Logica 60 (2):233-251.
Ruth Manor (1984). Dialogue Representation. Topoi 3 (1):63-73.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-25Total downloads29 ( #42,362 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
