Synthese

, Volume 177, Supplement 1, pp 77–96

The language of social software

Open Access
Article
  • 251 Downloads

Abstract

Computer software is written in languages like C, Java or Haskell. In many cases social software is expressed in natural language. The paper explores connections between the areas of natural language analysis and analysis of social protocols, and proposes an extended program for natural language semantics, where the goals of natural language communication are derived from the demands of specific social protocols.

Keywords

Protocol analysis Natural language analysis Epistemic logic Dynamic logic 

References

  1. Baltag, A., Moss, L. S., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In I. Bilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of TARK’98 (pp. 43–56).Google Scholar
  2. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1990). Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODS), pp. 50–61, 1984. A newer version appeared in the Journal of the ACM, 37(3), 549–587.Google Scholar
  4. Kozen D., Parikh R. (1981) An elementary proof of the completeness of PDL. Theoretical Computer Science 14: 113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Moore J. (1992) Implementation, contracts, and renegotiation in environments with complete information. In: Laffont J.-J. (eds) Advances in economic theory—6th World Congress. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Parikh R. (2002) Social software. Synthese 132: 187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pnueli A. (1981) A temporal logic of programs. Theoretical Computer Science 13: 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Robertson J., Webb W. (1998) Cake-cutting algorithms. A.K. Peters, WellesleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Sahwney C. (2004) 50 Wittiest Tales of Birbal. Unicorn Books, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  10. Segerberg K. (1982) A completeness theorem in the modal logic of programs. In: Traczyck T. (eds) Universal algebra and applications. Polish Science Publications, Warsaw, pp 36–46Google Scholar
  11. Steinhaus H. (1948) The problem of fair division. Econometrica 16: 101–104Google Scholar
  12. van Benthem, J. (2000). Information update as relativization. Technical report, ILLC, Amsterdam, 2000. Available from http://staff.science.uva.nl/~johan/Upd=Rel.pdf.
  13. van Benthem J., Gerbrandy J., Hoshi T., Pacuit E. (2009) Merging frameworks for interaction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(5): 491–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Benthem J., Liu F. (2007) Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 14(2): 157–182Google Scholar
  15. van Benthem, J., & Minica, S. (2009) Towards a dynamic logic of question. In X. He, J. Horty, & E. Pacuit (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on logic, rationality and interaction, Qhongqing, China, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar
  16. van Benthem J., van Eijck J., Kooi B. (2006) Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11): 1620–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Ditmarsch H., Kooi B. (2008) Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change. In: Bonanno G., van der Hoek W., Wooldridge M. (eds) Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT 7), Texts in Logic and Games. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 87–117Google Scholar
  18. van Ditmarsch, H., van Eijck, J., & Wu, W. (May 2010). One hundred prisoners and a lightbulb—Logic and computation. In Twelfth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  19. van Ditmarsch, H. P., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2006) Dynamic epistemic logic. In Synthese library (Vol. 337). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. van Eijck, J. (2007). DEMO—A demo of epistemic modelling. In J. van Benthem, D. Gabbay, & B. Löwe (Eds.), Interactive logic: Proceedings of the 7th Augustus de Morgan Workshop, Texts in Logic and Games (Vol. 1, pp. 305–363). Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  21. van Eijck, J., & Sietsma, F. (2010) Multi-agent belief revision with linked plausibilities. In G. Bonanno, B. Loewe, & W. van der Hoek (Eds.), Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory—LOFT 8, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 6006). Springer.Google Scholar
  22. van Eijck, J., & Unger, C. (December 2007). The epistemics of presupposition projection. In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, December 17–19, 2007 (pp. 235–240). Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  23. van Eijck, J., & Unger, C. (October 2010). Computational semantics with functional programming. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. van Eijck, J., & Wang, Y. (2008). Propositional dynamic logic as a logic of belief revision. In W. Hodges, & R. de Queiros (Eds.), Proceedings of Wollic’08, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 5110, pp. 136–148). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69937-8_13.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations