Synthese

, Volume 183, Supplement 1, pp 33–58

Dialogue structure and logical expressivism

Article

Abstract

This paper aims to develop the implications of logical expressivism for a theory of dialogue coherence. I proceed in three steps. Firstly, certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue are identified. Secondly, I describe a variant of the multi-agent natural deduction calculus that I introduced in Piwek (J Logic Lang Inf 16(4):403–421, 2007) and demonstrate how it accounts for the aforementioned structures. Thirdly, I examine how the aforementioned system can be used to formalise an expressivist account of logical vocabulary that is inspired by Brandom (Making it explicit: reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment, 1994; Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism, 2000). This account conceives of the logical vocabulary as a tool which allows speakers to describe the inferential practices which underlie their language use, i.e., it allows them to make those practices explicit. The rewards of this exercise are twofold: (1) We obtain a more precise account of logical expressivism which can be defended more effectively against the critique that such accounts lead to cultural relativism. (2) The formalised distinction between engaging in a practice and expressing it, opens the way for a revision of the theory of dialogue coherence. This revision eliminates the need for logically complex formulae to account for certain structural properties of cooperative dialogue.

Keywords

Dialogue coherence Logical expressivism Natural deduction Logical vocabulary Inferential practices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barth E., Krabbe E. (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap N. (1962) Tonk, Plonk and Plink. Analysis 22(6): 130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beun R. (2001) On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 9(1): 37–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandom R. (2000) Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandom R. (2008) Between saying and doing. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandom, R. (2010) Reply to Bernhard Weiss’s “What is logic?” In B. Weiss & J. Wanderer (Eds.), Reading Brandom on making it explicit (pp. 353–356). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  8. de Wit S., Dickinson A. (2009) Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: A case for animal-human translational models. Psychological Research 73: 463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1925) Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court. (Quoted from the Dover Edition, first published 1958, New York: Dover Publications Inc.)Google Scholar
  10. Geach, P., Black, M. (eds) (1952) Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentzen G. (1934) Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen I. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39(2): 176–210Google Scholar
  12. Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Language, logic and computation (Vol. 1). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  13. Gregoromichelaki E., Kempson R., Purver M., Mills G., Cann R., Meyer-Viol W., Healey P. (2011) Incrementality and intention-recognition in utterance processing. Discourse & Dialogue 2(1): 199–233Google Scholar
  14. Grice H. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P., Morgan J. (eds) Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 64–75Google Scholar
  15. Healey, P., Purver, M., King, J., Ginzburg, J., & Mills, G. (2003). Experimenting with clarification in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Horton W., Gerrig R. (2005) Conversational common ground and memory processes in language production. Discourse Processes 40(1): 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keysar B. (2007) Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1): 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kibble R. (2006) Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Computation 4(2–3): 179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lance M., Kremer P. (1994) The logical structure of linguistic commitment I: Four systems of non-relevant commitment entailment. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23: 369–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin J., Moore J. (1988) Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. In: Bond A., Gasser L. (eds) Readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp 385–397Google Scholar
  21. Levinson S. (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics 17: 365–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzen P., Lorenz K. (1978) Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin-Löf P. (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Bibliopolis, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  24. Millikan R. (2005) Language: A biological model. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pickering M., Garrod S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27(2): 169–226Google Scholar
  26. Piwek P. (2007) Meaning and dialogue coherence: A Proof-theoretic investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16(4): 403–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plüss, B. (2010). Non-cooperation in dialogue. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 student research workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  28. Power R. (1979) The organisation of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics 17: 107–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pulman, S. (1999). Relating dialogue games to information states. In: Proceedings of the European Speech Communication Association workshop on dialogue and prosody. De Koningshof, The Netherlands, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  30. Purver, M., & Kempson, R. (2004). Context-based incremental generation for dialogue. In A. Belz, R. Evans, & P. Piwek (Eds.), Natural language generation, Vol. 3123 of Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (pp. 151–160). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  32. Schegloff E., Sacks H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sundholm, G. (1986). Proof theory and meaning. In Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. III, pp. 471–506). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor J. A., Carletta J., Mellish C. (1996) Requirements for belief models in cooperative dialogue. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 6(1): 23–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traum, D., & Larsson, S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 325–353). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Weiss B. (2010) What is logic?. In: Weiss B., Wanderer J. (eds) Reading brandom on making it explicit. Routledge, London, pp 247–261Google Scholar
  38. Wellman H., Cross D., Watson J. (2001) Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72(3): 655–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Werkausgabe Band 1: Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Tagebücher 1914–1916, Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in ComputingThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations