Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 403–421 | Cite as

Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-theoretic Investigation



This paper presents a novel proof-theoretic account of dialogue coherence. It focuses on an abstract class of cooperative information-oriented dialogues and describes how their structure can be accounted for in terms of a multi-agent hybrid inference system that combines natural deduction with information transfer and observation. We show how certain dialogue structures arise out of the interplay between the inferential roles of logical connectives (i.e., sentence semantics), a rule for transferring information between agents, and a rule for information flow between agents and their environment. The order of explanation is opposite in direction to that adopted in game-theoretic semantics, where sentence semantics (or a notion of valid inference) is derived from winning dialogue strategies. That approach and the current one may, however, be reconcilable, since we focus on cooperative dialogue, whereas the game-theoretic tradition concentrates on adversarial dialogue.


Coherence Dialogue modelling Natural deduction Multi-agent Inference Proof-theoretic semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barth E., Krabbe E. (1982) From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Etchemendy J. (1994) Hyperproof, CSLI lecture notes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Beun, R. (2001). On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 9(1).Google Scholar
  4. Boltzmann L. (1905) Über die Methoden der theoretischen Physik. Barth, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghuis, T., & Nederpelt, R. (2000). Belief revision with explicit justifications: An exploration in type theory. CS-Report 00-17, Eindhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunt, H., & Girard, Y. (2005). Designing an open, multidimensional dialogue taxonomy. In C. Gardent, & B. Gaiffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (DIALOR’05). Nancy, France.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen P., Morgan J., Pollack M. (1990) Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, P., & Pietrzykowski, T. (1986). Causes for events: Their computation and applications. In Proc. 8th international conference on automated deduction (CADE’86) (pp. 608–621). Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Craig R., Tracy K. eds. (1983) Conversational coherence: Form, structure and strategy. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, C., & Kakas, A. (1992). Hypothetico-deductive reasoning. In Proc. international conference on fifth generation computer systems (pp. 546–554). Tokyo.Google Scholar
  12. Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431.Google Scholar
  13. Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In: Language, logic and computation (vol. 1). Stanford: CSLI.Google 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. Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies. Methuen & Co Ltd. [Quote from reprint by Vale Press, Newport New, Virginia, 1993].Google Scholar
  16. Hamblin C. (1971) Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 37, 130–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (1998). The role of abduction. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Logic programming, Vol. 5 of handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (pp. 235–324). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Levinson S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenzen P., Lorenz K. (1978) Dialogische logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  20. Mann, B. (2002). What is dialogue coherence?. Memo available at Scholar
  21. Merritt M. (1976) On questions following questions (in service encounters). Language in Society 5(3): 315–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2007). A multidimensional approach to multimodal dialogue act annotation. In J. Geertzen, E. Thijsse, H. Bunt, & Schiffrin, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computational semantics IWCS-7 (pp. 142–153). Tilburg.Google Scholar
  23. Piwek, P. (2006). The Alligator theorem prover for dependent type systems: description and proof sample. In Proceedings of the inference in computational semantics workshop (ICoS-5). Buxton, UK.Google Scholar
  24. Piwek, P., & Krahmer, E. (2000). Presuppositions in context: Constructing bridges. In P. Bonzon, M. Cavalcanti, & R. Nossum (Eds.), Formal aspects of context, Vol. 20 of applied logic series (pp. 85–106). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Piwek, P., & van Deemter, K. (2002). Towards automated generation of scripted dialogue: Some time-honoured strategies. In EDILOG 2002: Proceedings of the sixth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 141–148).Google Scholar
  26. Power R. (1979) The organisation of purposeful dialogues. Linguistics 17, 107–152Google Scholar
  27. Pulman, S. (1999). Relating dialogue games to information states. In Proceedings of the European speech communication association workshop on dialogue and prosody (pp. 17–24). The Netherlands: De Koningshof.Google Scholar
  28. Saarinen E., eds. (1979) Game-theoretical semantics. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Schegloff, E. (1972). Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 346–380). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Schegloff E., Sacks H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4): 289–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schroeder-Heister P. (2006) Validity concepts in proof-theoretics semantics. Synthese 148, 525–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stenius E. (1967). Mood and language-game. Synthese 17: 254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stenström A.-B. (1994) An introduction to spoken interaction. Longman, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Sudnow D., eds. (1972) Studies in social interaction. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Sundholm, G. (1986). Proof theory and meaning. In Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. III, pp. 471–506). D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Traum, D., & Larsson, S. (2003). The information state approach to dialogue management. In Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 325–353). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Waismann, F. (1965). The principles of linguistic philosophy. Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Walton D., Krabbe E. (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Wittgenstein L. (1984) Philosophische grammatik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations