Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 265–282 | Cite as

Game theory and discourse anaphora

Original Article

Abstract

We develop an analysis of discourse anaphora—the relationship between a pronoun and an antecedent earlier in the discourse—using games of partial information. The analysis is extended to include information from a variety of different sources, including lexical semantics, contrastive stress, grammatical relations, and decision theoretic aspects of the context.

Keywords

Game theory Pragmatics Semantics Discourse Pronouns Anaphora Anaphors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Breheny R. (2002). Pragmatic analyses of anaphoric pronouns: Do things look better in 2-d? Cambridge: RCEAL, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Camerer C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark R. Games, quantification and discourse structure. In: Pietarinen A.-V. (Ed), Logic, Games and Philosophy: Foundational Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Publishers, in press.Google Scholar
  4. De Saussure F. (1916/1972). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Éditions Payot.Google Scholar
  5. Dekker P. (2004). Grounding dynamic semantics. In: Reimer M., Bezuidenhout A. (eds), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 484–502Google Scholar
  6. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grosz B., Joshi A., & Weinstein S. (1983). Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proc. 21st annual meeting of the ACL (pp. 44–50). Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Joshi A., & Weinstein S. (1981). Control of inference: Role of some aspects of discourse structure-centering. In Proc. international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp. 385–387Google Scholar
  9. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  10. Miltsakaki E. (2003). The syntax-discourse interface: Effects of the main-subordinate distinction on attention structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  11. Myerson R.B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Parikh P. (2001). The use of language. Stanford, CA, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  13. Parikh P. (2006). Radical semantics: A new theory of meaning. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35, 349–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parikh P., & Clark R. (2005). The meaning of THE: A new account of definite descriptions. PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  15. Pietarinen A.-V. (2004). Semantic games and generalised quantifiers. Helsinki, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  16. Prasad R. (2003). Constraints on the generation of referring expressions, with special reference to hindi. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  17. Roberts C. (2004). Pronouns as definites. In: Reimer M., Bezuidenhout A. (eds), Descriptions and beyond. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 503–543Google Scholar
  18. Rubinstein A. (1998). Modelling bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA, The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed). London, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  20. Stalnaker R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Eijck J., Kamp H. (1997). Representing discourse in context. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds), Handbook of logic and language. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, pp. 179–237Google Scholar
  22. Walker M., Prince E. (1996). A bilateral approach to givenness: A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In: Fretheim T., Gundel J. (eds), Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 291–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.IRCSUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations