David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This chapter investigates the computational consequences of a broadly Gricean view of language use as intentional activity. In this view, dialogue rests on coordinated reasoning about communicative intentions. The speaker produces each utterance by formulating a suitable communicative intention. The hearer understands it by recognizing the communicative intention behind it. When this coordination is successful, interlocutors succeed in considering the same intentions— that is, the same representations of utterance meaning—as the dialogue proceeds. In this paper, I emphasize that these intentions can be formalized; we can provide abstract but systematic representations that spell out what a speaker is trying to do with an utterance. Such representations describe utterances simultaneously as the product of our knowledge of grammar and as actions chosen for a reason. In particular, they must characterize the speaker’s utterance in grammatical terms, provide the links to the context that the grammar requires, and so arrive at a contribution that the speaker aims to achieve. Because I have implemented this formalism, we can regard it as a possible analysis of conversational processes at the level of computational theory. Nevertheless, this analysis leaves open what the nature of the biological computation involved in inference to intentions is, and what regularities in language use support this computation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Marco Mazzone & Emanuela Campisi (2010). Are There Communicative Intentions? In L. A. Perez Miranda & A. I. Madariaga (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Science: Learning, Evolution, and Social Action. IWCogSc-10 Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Cognitive Science.
Gergely Csibra (2010). Recognizing Communicative Intentions in Infancy. Mind and Language 25 (2):141-168.
Petr Kot'?Tko (1998). Two Notions of Utterance Meaning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98:225 - 239.
Steffen Borge (2009). Intentions and Compositionality. SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy 10 (1):100-106.
Maciej Witek (2009). Scepticism About Reflexive Intentions Refuted. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5 (1):69-83.
Robyn Carston (2004). Truth-Conditional Content and Conversational Implicature. In Claudia Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Csli 65--100.
Christopher Gauker (2001). Situated Inference Versus Conversational Implicature. Noûs 35 (2):163–189.
Mark Risjord (1996). Meaning, Belief, and Language Acquisition. Philosophical Psychology 9 (4):465-475.
Vojislav Bozickovic (2001). The Semantic Insignificance of Referential Intentions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):125-135.
Aaron Sloman (1992). Prolegomena to a Theory of Communication and Affect. In Andrew Ortony, Jon Slack & Oliviero Stock (eds.), Communication from an Artificial Intelligence Perspective: Theoretical and Applied Issues. Springer
Raymond W. Gibbs (1993). The Intentionalist Controversy and Cognitive Science. Philosophical Psychology 6 (2):181-205.
Alex Barber (2003). Truth Conditions and Their Recognition. In Epistemology of Language. Oxford University Press
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads17 ( #203,806 of 1,790,003 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #140,142 of 1,790,003 )
How can I increase my downloads?