Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 5)
Speaker Plans, Linguistic Contexts, and Indirect Speech Acts
Some indirect speech acts are unrelated to the semantic meaning of the sentence uttered, how ever widely we construe “semantic meaning”. Searle gives this example:
The sentence “I have to study for an exam” is not lexically tied to turning down proposals to go to the movies. There is no sense in which this is part of its meaning. However, in this context B uses it to do just this.
Let’s go to the movies tonight.
I have to study for an exam.
(Searle, Indirect Speech Acts [Searle75])
KeywordsDomain Plan Linguistic Context Semantic Meaning Default Rule 14The Default
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Allen, J. “Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances,” Computational Models of Discourse, M. Brady and R. Berwick, eds., pp. 108–166, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- Belnap, N. “Conditional assertion and restricted uantification,” Nous IV, pp. 1–13, 1970.Google Scholar
- Brand, M. “Intentional action and plans,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy X, P. French, et al., eds., Minnesota University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. and C. Perrault. “Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts,” Cognitive Science 3, pp 177–212, 1979.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. and H. Levesque. “Speech acts and the recognition of shared plans,” Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pp. 263 271, 1980.Google Scholar
- Gazdar, G. “Speech act assignment,” Elements of Discourse Understanding, A. Joshi, B. Webber, I. Sag, eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–83, 1981.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. “Meaning,” Philosophical Review 66, pp. 377–388, 1957.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. “Logic and conversation” Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Academic Press, pp. 41–58, 1975.Google Scholar
- Grosz, B. and C. Sidner. “Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse,” Computational Linguistics 12, pp. 175–204, 1986.Google Scholar
- Hamblin, C. “Mathematical models of dialogue,” Theoria 37, 1971.Google Scholar
- Hinkleman, E. “A plan-based approach to conversational implicature,” unpublished.Google Scholar
- Hobbs, J. “Towards an understanding of coherence in dialogue,” Strategies for Natural Language Processing, W. Lehnert and M. Ringle, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, pp. 223–243, 1982.Google Scholar
- Ilobbs, J. “On the coherence and structure of discourse,” The Structure of Discourse, L. Polanyi, ed., Ablex, 1987.Google Scholar
- Kautz, H. “A Formal theory of plan recognition,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, 1987.Google Scholar
- Levinson, S. Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- Litman, D. “Linguistic coherence: a plan-based alternative,” Coling 86, pp. 215–223, 1986.Google Scholar
- Perrault, C. and J. Allen. “A plan based analysis of indirect speech acts,” Computational Linguistics 6,pp. 167–182, 1980.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, L., ed., The Structure of Discourse,Ablex, 1987.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. Indirect speech acts, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, Academic Press, pp. 59–82, 1975.Google Scholar
- Stalnaker, R. “Pragmatic presuppostions,” Semantics and Philosophy, M. Munitz and P. Unger, eds., Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
- Thomason, R. Accommodation, Conversational Planning, and Implicature, (draft), unpublished.Google Scholar
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990