Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2009)

Nicholas Asher
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
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 (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,959
External links

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

Syntax and Semantics of Questions.Lauri Karttunen - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1):3--44.
Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements.Joroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof - 1982 - Linguistics and Philosophy 5 (2):175 - 233.
Agreement, Disputes and Commitments in Dialogue.A. Lascarides & N. Asher - 2009 - Journal of Semantics 26 (2):109-158.
Discourse Representation Theory and Belief Dynamics.Nicholas Asher - 1991 - In André Fuhrmann & Michael Morreau (eds.), The Logic of Theory Change. Springer. pp. 282--321.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Dynamics of Epistemic Modality.Malte Willer - 2013 - Philosophical Review 122 (1):45-92.
Jigsaw Semantics.Paul J. E. Dekker - 2011 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6:1-26.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Acceptance in Bayesian Philosophy of Science.Patrick Maher - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:153 - 160.
On the Logic of Acceptance and Rejection.Anna Gomolińska - 1998 - Studia Logica 60 (2):233-251.
Questions in Dialogue.Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides - 1998 - Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (3):237-309.
A Theory of Conclusions.Raymond Dacey - 1978 - Philosophy of Science 45 (4):563-574.
Presuppositions and Common Ground.Barbara Abbott - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):523-538.
Dialogue Representation.Ruth Manor - 1984 - Topoi 3 (1):63-73.


Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #168,511 of 2,504,607 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,254 of 2,504,607 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes