Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 97–116

Errors in Pragmatics

Article

Abstract

In this paper we are going to show that error coping strategies play an essential role in linguistic pragmatics. We study the effect of noisy speaker strategies within a framework of signalling games with feedback loop. We distinguish between cases in which errors occur in message selection and cases in which they occur in signal selection. The first type of errors affects the content of an utterance, and the second type its linguistic expression. The general communication model is inspired by the Shannon–Weaver communication model. We test the model by a number of benchmark examples, including examples of relevance implicatures, quantity implicatures, and presupposition accommodation.

Keywords

Gricean pragmatics Game theoretic pragmatics Error models Implicatures Presupposition accommodation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beaver D. (1997) Presupposition. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 939–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benz A. (2006) Utility and relevance of answers. In: Benz A., Jäger G., van Rooij R. (eds) Game theory and pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 195–214Google Scholar
  3. Benz A. (2011) How to set up normal optimal answer models. In: Benz A., Ebert C., Jäger G., Rooij R. (eds) Language, games, and evolution, Vol. 6207 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 14–39Google Scholar
  4. Benz A., van Rooij R. (2007) Optimal assertions and what they implicate: A uniform game theoretic approach. Topoi—an International Review of Philosophy 27(1): 63–78Google Scholar
  5. Blutner R. (2000) Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, R. (2009). Meaningful games: Exploring language with game theory. Book Ms., USA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  7. Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. PhD thesis, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2009-11.Google Scholar
  8. Grice H. P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Jäger, G., & Ebert, C. (2009). Pragmatic rationalizability. In A. Riester & T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 13, pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  10. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Parikh P. (2001) The use of language. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Parikh P. (2006) Pragmatics and games of partial information. In: Benz A., Jäger G., van Rooij R. (eds) Game theory and pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 101–121Google Scholar
  13. Parikh P. (2010) Language and equilibrium. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Ross, I. (2006). Games interlocutors play: New adventures in compositionality and conversational implicature. PhD thesis, USA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  15. Sauerland U. (2004) Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shannon C. E., Weaver W. (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  17. Zaefferer D. (1977) Understanding misunderstandings: A proposal for an explanation of reading choices. Journal of Pragmatics 1: 329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for General LinguisticsBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations