Abstract
We focus in this paper on the potential uses of Ludics, a logical framework based on recent developments in proof theory, for modeling natural language dialogues. The aim is to be able to grasp and to account for some aspects of incoherence in discourses. Among the properties relevant for studying dialogues, two features of Ludics are of interest for our purpose: the duality of viewpoints of two interlocutors as well as the possibility of ruptures. We illustrate first the potential usefulness of such a model for accounting and analyzing incoherence in dialogues due to cultural gap. We then focus on dialogues with schizophrenic individuals (where we examine the psychiatric description of schizophrenia and describe its associated problems of logicity and inconsistency) to try to answer the following questions: to what extent does incoherence play a role in schizophrenic discourse? And, would a more precise characterization of “non-standard” rationality help explain the range of potential complications of schizophrenia?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Composition of a verb with its arguments in a semantical/syntactical approach of computational linguistic; composition of an implicative proposition with its premiss in Logic.
- 2.
Ludics is more formally presented in the annex.
- 3.
- 4.
Either the positive side at the right of the turnstyle symbol or the negative one at the left of the turnstyle symbol.
- 5.
We may use address, locus and location equivalently.
- 6.
“Neosemy is a semantic innovation of which the jobs testify” (Rastier 2009).
- 7.
“Je n’essaie pas de me faire entendre, j’essaie de me faire comprendre. Si vous pouvez faire du sens avec du non-sens, alors bonne chance. J’essaie en un sens de faire du sens avec du non-sens. Le sens ne m’intéresse plus, il y a trop de sens uniques, les “cents” (prononcé à l’anglaise) m’intéressent. Pour être franc, ce sont les francs qui m’intéressent.”
- 8.
\(\searrow \) stands for a descending pitch, \(\nearrow \) for a rising pitch, \(\rightarrow \) for a silent pause.
- 9.
I watch TV (\(\searrow \))/ News (\(\nearrow \))/ News yes programs I like Thalassa / Yes; you then like news (\(\rightarrow \)) so you know a little bit of everything that’s going on, eh (\(\rightarrow \))/ I was fired from the E factory. I worked in a filtration company as mechanic, then I was fired (\(\searrow \)).
- 10.
\(\mathbf{S}_{124}^1\) Yeah (\(\nearrow \)), and complicated (\(\searrow \)) really complicated (\(\rightarrow \)). \(\mathbf{S}^2_{124}\) Politics, it is really something when you do it well but you have to be a winner because otherwise, if you’re a loser it’s over (\(\searrow \)). \(\mathbf{P}_{125}\) Yes. \(\mathbf{S}_{126}\) J.C.D. is dead, L. is dead, P. is dead uh (...) \(\mathbf{P}_{127}\) They died because they lost in your opinion (\(\nearrow \)). \(\mathbf{S}_{128}\) No, they won, but if they are dead, it’s the disease. It’s it’s (\(\rightarrow \)). \(\mathbf{P}_{129}\) Yes, they were ill, not because they were doing politics (\(\nearrow \)). \(\mathbf{S}_{130}\) Yes but (\(\rightarrow \)). \(\mathbf{P}_{131}\) If you think it’s because they were doing politics (\(\nearrow \)). \(\mathbf{S}_{132}\) Yes yes there is also C. who committed a murder (\(\rightarrow \)) they were also at B. but well (\(\rightarrow \)) it still comes down to politics.
- 11.
French (metaphoric) word for “dam”.
- 12.
“These things you have to tell me with your mouth.”
References
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandom, R. (2009). L’articulation des raisons. Paris: Éditions du cerf.
Chemillier, M. (2008). Eléments pour une ethnomathématique de l’awélé. Mathématiques et sciences humaines, 181(Varia), 5–34.
Codet, H. (1926). Psychiatrie. Consultations journalières. Paris, G. Doin & cie.
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ey, H., Bernard, P., & Brisset, C. (2010). Manuel de psychiatrie (6th ed.). Masson.
Fouqueré, C., & Quatrini, M. (2012). Ludics and natural language. In D. Béchet, A. Dikovsky (eds.) LACL, LNCS, vol. 7351, pp. 21–44.
Fouqueré, C., & Quatrini, M. (2013). Argumentation and inference: A unified approach. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 8(4), 1–41.
Fouqueré, C., Lecomte, A., Livet, P., Quatrini, M., & Tronçon, S. (2018). Mathématiques du dialogue, sens et interaction. Hermann.
Girard, J. Y. (2001). Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 11(3), 301–506.
Lecomte, A., & Quatrini, M. (2009). Ludics and its applications to natural language semantics. In H. Ono, M. Kanazawa, & R. de Queiroz (Eds.), Language, Information and Computation (Vol. 5514, pp. 242–255). Wollic: Springer Verlag, Tokyo, Japan.
Lecomte, A., & Quatrini, M. (2011). Figures of dialogue: A view from Ludics. Synthese, 183(S1), 59–85.
Pinto, J. J. (1984). Logic of psychotic utterances. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00802456.
Prawitz, D. (2007). Validity of inferences. In The 2nd Launer Symposium on Analytical Philosophy on the Occasion of the Presentation of the Launer Prize to Dagfinn Føllesdal, in Bern.
Rastier, F., & Valette, M. (2009). De la polysémie à la néosémie. Texto! 14(1), 18.
Rebuschi, M., Amblard, M., & Musiol, M. (2013). Schizophrénie, logicité et compréhension en première personne. L’Evolution Psychiatrique, 78(1), 27–141.
Schizophasie. https://carnets2psycho.net/dico/sens-de-schizophasie.html.
Schreber, D. P. (1985). Mémoires d’un névropathe. Seuil.
Sechehaye, M. (2003). Journal d’une schizophrène. Presses Universitaires de France.
van Orman Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Verhaegen, F. (2007). Psychopathologie cognitive des processus intentionnels schizophréniques dans l’interaction verbale. Ph.D. thesis, Nancy-Université.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fouqueré, C., Pinto, JJ., Quatrini, M. (2021). Incoherences in Dialogues and their Formalization Focus on Dialogues with Schizophrenic Individuals. In: Amblard, M., Musiol, M., Rebuschi, M. (eds) (In)coherence of Discourse. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71434-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71434-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71433-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71434-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)