Conventional Signalling Acts and Conversation

  • Andrew J. I. Jones
  • Xavier Parent
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2922)

Abstract

This article aims to provide foundations for a new approach to Agent Communication Languages (ACLs). First, we outline the theory of signalling acts. In contrast to current approaches to communication, this account is neither intention-based nor commitment-based, but convention-based. Next, we outline one way of embedding that theory within an account of conversation. We move here from an account of the basic types of communicative act (the statics of communication) to an account of their role in sequences of exchanges in communicative interaction (the dynamics of communication). Finally, we apply the framework to the analysis of a conversational protocol.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, L. (eds.) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1053–1062 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying electronic societies with the Causal Calculator. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J., Weiss, G. (eds.) Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering III (AOSE), Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, J.: Linguistic Behavior. Cambridge (1976)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandom, R.: Asserting. Nous 17, 637–650 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brandom, R.B.: Making it Explicit - Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chavez, A., Maes, P.: Kasbah: an agent marketplace for buying and selling goods. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-1996), London, UK, pp. 76–90 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic - an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversation Policies, Barcelona, pp. 21–29 (2000); Held at the ‘Agents 2000’ conferenceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dunne, P.E., McBurney, P.: Concepts of optimal utterance in dialogue: Selection and complexity. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 310–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elgesem, D.: Action Theory and Modal Logic. PhD thesis, Institutt for filosofi. Det historik-filosofiske fakultetet. Universitetet Oslo, 1993. See also Elgesem’s paper The modal logic of agency. The Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 1–46 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitting, M.: Basic modal logic. In: Hogger, C., Gabbay, D.M., Robinson, J. (eds.) Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Follesdal, D.: Comments on Stenius’s Mood and language game. Synthese 17, 275–280 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grice, H.P.: Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66, 377–388 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, A.J.I.: Communication and Meaning - an essay in applied modal logic. Dordrecht (1983)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.J.I. Jones. On the concept of trust. Decision Support Systems, 33:225–232, 2002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, A.J.I.: A logical framework. In: Pitt, J. (ed.) The Open Agent Society, ch. 3, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: Formal specification of security requirements using the theory of normative positions. In: Deswarte, Y., Quisquater, J.-J., Eizenberg, G. (eds.) ESORICS 1992. LNCS, vol. 648, pp. 103–121. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic 4, 349–367 (1996)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In: Pollack, M.E. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence (IJCAI 1997), Nagoya, Japan, pp. 584–591. Morgan Kaufmann publishers, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Levi, I.: Review of: Making it explicit. Journal of Philosophy 93, 145–158 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis, D.K.: Convention: a Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mallya, A.U., Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marx, M.: Dynamic arrow logic. In: Marx, M., Masuch, M., Polos, P. (eds.) Arrow Logic and Multi-Modal Logic, pp. 109–129. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pratt, V.R.: Semantical considerations on Floyd-Hoare logic. In: Proc. 17th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 109–121 (1976)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts - an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Searle, J.R., Vanderveken, D. (eds.): Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sergot, M.: Normative positions. In: McNamara, P., Prakken, H. (eds.) Norms, Logic and Information Systems, pp. 289–308. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12), 40–47 (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, I.A., Cohen, P.R., Bradshaw, J.M., Greaves, M., Holmback, H.: Designing conversation policies using joint intention theory. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998) (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stenius, E.: Mood and language game. Synthese 17, 254–274 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Benthem, J.: Language in Action. The MIT Press, Amsterdam (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Benthem, J.: A note on dynamic arrow logics. In: van Eijck, J., Visser, A. (eds.) Logic and Information Flow, pp. 15–29. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Benthem, J.: Exploring Logical Dynamics. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venema, Y.: A crash course in arrow logic. In: Marx, M., Masuch, M., Polos, P. (eds.) Arrow Logic and Multi-Modal Logic, pp. 3–34. CSLI Publications, Stanford (1994)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. I. Jones
    • 1
  • Xavier Parent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations