David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 183 (S1):59-85 (2011)
In this paper, we study dialogue as a game, but not only in the sense in which there would exist winning strategies and a priori rules. Dialogue is not governed by game rules like for chess or other games, since even if we start from a priori rules, it is always possible to play with them, provided that some invariant properties are preserved. An important discovery of Ludics is that such properties may be expressed in geometrical terms. The main feature of a dialogue is “convergence”. Intuitively, a dialogue “diverges” when it stops prematurely by some disruption, or a violation of the tacit agreed upon conditions of the discourse. It converges when the two speakers go together towards a situation where they agree at least on some points. As we shall see, convergence may be thought of through the geometrical concept of orthogonality . Utterances in a dialogue have as their content, not only the processes (similar to proofs) which lead to them from a monologic view, but also their interactions with other utterances. Finally, any utterance must be seen as co-constructed in an interaction between two processes. That is to say that it not only contains one speaker’s intentions but also his or her expectations from the other interlocutor. From our viewpoint, discursive strategies like narration , elaboration , topicalization may derive from such interactions, as well as speech acts like assertion, question and denegation
|Keywords||Dialogue Pragmatics Logic Game theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides (1998). Questions in Dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (3):237-309.
Robert Brandom (2000). Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
Jean-Yves Girard (2003). From Foundations to Ludics. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 (2):131-168.
J. van Kuppevelt (1996). Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations. Journal of Semantics 13 (4):363-395.
Douglas Walton (2000). The Place of Dialogue Theory in Logic, Computer Science and Communication Studies. Synthese 123 (3):327-346.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Tasos Kazepides (2012). Education as Dialogue. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (9):913-925.
Matthew Stone, Communicative Intentions and Conversational Processes in Human-Human and Human-Computer Dialogue.
Robin Cooper, A Type Theoretic Approach to Information State Update in Issue Based Dialogue Management.
Erick C. W. Krabbe (1984). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese 58 (2):295 - 328.
Erik C. W. Krabbe (1985). Formal Systems of Dialogue Rules. Synthese 63 (3):295 - 328.
J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Herman Cappelen (2011). Against Assertion. In Jessica Brown & Herman Cappelen (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press.
Paul Piwek (2007). Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):403-421.
Ali Paya (2002). “Dialogue” In a “Real World”. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (2):201-222.
Matthew Stone & Richmond H. Thomason, Coordinating Understanding and Generation in an Abductive Approach.
Douglas Walton (2011). A Dialogue System Specification for Explanation. Synthese 182 (3):349-374.
Ryan C. Urbano (2012). Levinas and Interfaith Dialogue. Heythrop Journal 53 (1):148-161.
Robbert-Jan Beun & Rogier M. van Eijk (2007). Dialogue Coherence: A Generation Framework. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):365-385.
T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard & P. H. Leng (2000). A Method for the Computational Modelling of Dialectical Argument with Dialogue Games. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):233-254.
Christian G. Fermüller & George Metcalfe (2009). Giles's Game and the Proof Theory of Łukasiewicz Logic. Studia Logica 92 (1):27 - 61.
Added to index2011-10-18
Total downloads15 ( #107,922 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,399 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?