Conclusions and Work in Progress

  • Nicolas ClerboutEmail author
  • Shahid Rahman
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)


Developing a dialogical approach to CTT is still only beginning and many open issues have yet to be tackled in order to assess its fruitfulness. However, before these issues could be tackled, the dialogical approach to CTT had to be shown faithful to the standard CTT formulation.


Belief Revision Epistemic Logic Modal Epistemic Equality Rule Extensional Identity 
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.


  1. Dybjer, P. 2012. Tests, games, and Martin-Löf’s meaning explanations for intuitionistic type theory. Slides of a talk given at the congress logic and interactions, Marseille (France).Google Scholar
  2. Ginzburg, J. 2012. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Granström, J. 2011. Treatise on Intuitionistic Type Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lorenz, K. 2001. Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. In New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic, ed. S. Rahman and H. Rückert, 255–263. New York: Springer (Synthese 127(1–2): special volume).Google Scholar
  6. Lorenzen, P. 1955. Einführung in die Operative Logik und Mathematik. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Prawitz, D. 1965. Natural Deduction: A Proof-Theoretical Study. PhD thesis, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  8. Primiero, G. 2008. Information and Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Primiero, G. 2012. A contextual type theory with judgemental modalities for reasoning from open assumptions. Logique et Analyse 220: 579–600.Google Scholar
  10. Rahman, S. 2014. On hypothetical judgements and Leibniz’s notion of conditional right. In Legal Reasoning and Logic. Past & Present Interactions, ed. A. Armgardt, P. Canivez, and S. Chassagnard-Pinet. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Ranta, A. 1991. Constructing possible worlds. Theoria 57(1–2): 77–99.Google Scholar
  12. Ranta, A. 1994. Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Filosofía; CDHACSUniversidad de ValparaísoValparaísoChile
  2. 2.UMR-CNRS 8163: STLUniversity of Lille IIIVilleneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations