Speech Acts with Institutional Effects in Agent Societies

  • Robert Demolombe
  • Vincent Louis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4048)


A general logical framework is presented to represent speech acts that have institutional effects. It is based on the concepts of the Speech Act Theory and takes the form of the FIPA Agent Communication Language.

The most important feature is that the illocutionary force of all of these speech acts is declarative. The formal language that is proposed to represent the propositional content has a large expressive power and therefore allows to represent a large variety of speech acts such as: to empower, to appoint, to order, to declare,...etc.

The same formal language is also used to express the feasibility preconditions, the illocutionary effects and the perlocutionary effects.


Modal Logic Multiagent System Human Agent Institutional Fact Agent Communication 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boella, G., Hulstin, J., Tan, Y.-H., van der Torre, L.: Transaction trust in normative multi agent systems. In: AAMAS Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carmo, J., Pacheco, O.: Deontic and action logics for collective agency and roles. In: Demolombe, R., Hilpinen, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, ONERA (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.: Performatives in a Rationally Based Speech Act Theory. In: Berwick, R.C. (ed.) Proc. of 28th Annual meeting of Association of Computational Linguistics, Association of Computational Linguistics (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colomb, R.M.: Information systems technology grounded on institutional facts. In: Workshop on Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising. The Australian National University, Canberra (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombetti, M., Verdicchio, M.: An analysis of agent speech acts as institutional actions. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1157–1166. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demolombe, R., Bretier, P., Louis, V.: Formalisation de l’obligation de faire avec délais. Troisièmes Journées francophones Modèles Formels de l’Interaction (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, F.: Software agents and e-business, Hype and Reality. In: Wieringa, R., Feenstra, R. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems III. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.): ACL 2003. LNCS, vol. 2922. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Communication and Deontic Logic. In: Wieringa, R., Feenstra, R. (eds.) Information Systems, Correctness and Reusability. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elgesem, D.: Action Theory and Modal Logic. PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Philosophy (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., Lemaître, C.: A framework for social agents’ interaction based on communicative action theory and dynamic deontic logic. In: Coello Coello, C.A., de Albornoz, Á., Sucar, L.E., Battistutti, O.C. (eds.) MICAI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2313, p. 340. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Firozabadi, B.S., Sergot, M.: Power and Permission in Security Systems. In: Malcolm, J.A., Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1999. LNCS, vol. 1796. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitting, M., Mendelsohn, R.L.: First-Order Modal Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flores, R., Pasquier, P., Chaib-draa, B.: Conversational semantics with social commitments. In: van Eijk, R.M., Huget, M.-P., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3396, pp. 18–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical report (2002), http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/
  17. 17.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, pp. 520–527. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Colombetti, M.: Agent communication and institutional reality. In: van Eijk, R.M., Huget, M.-P., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3396, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D.: Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, Reidel (1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, A.J., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 4(3) (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kimbrough, S.O., Moore, S.A.: On automated message processing in Electronic Commerce and Work Support Systems: Speech Act Theory and Expressive Felicity. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 15(4) (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kimbrough, S.O., Tan, Y.-H.: On lean messaging with unfolding and unwrapping for Electronic Commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 5(1) (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Louis, V.: Conception et mise en oeuvre de modèles formels du calcul et du suivi de plans d’actions complexes par un agent rationnel dialoguant. PhD thesis, Université de Caen, France (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy, J.: Free will - even for robots. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence (to appear)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sadek, D.: A study in the logic of intention. In: Proc. of the 3rd Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1992) (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D.: Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Segerberg, K.: Some Meinong/Chisholm thesis. In: Segerberg, K., Sliwinski, K. (eds.) Logic, Law, Morality. A festrichft in honor of Lennart Aqvist, vol. 51, pp. 67–77. Uppsala Philosophical Studies (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh, M.P.: Social and psychological commitments in multiagent systems. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Knowledge and Action at Social and Organizational Levels (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Demolombe
    • 1
  • Vincent Louis
    • 2
  1. 1.ONERA ToulouseFrance
  2. 2.France Telecom Research & DevelopmentLannionFrance

Personalised recommendations