Advertisement

Begging Questions, Their Answers and Basic Cooperativity

  • Nicholas Asher
  • Jason Quinley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7258)

Abstract

We consider game-theoretic rationales for minimal cooperativity, in particular responses to questions or requests for help with false answers. Lying enables preservation of property and face for both speaker and hearer and constitutes a Pareto-optimal outcome. Rationales for this behavior include expectations of reciprocity, other-regarding, and maintenance of face.

Keywords

Public Good Game Discourse Structure Trust Game Direct Answer Walk Away 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge Univeristy Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Strategic Conversation (manuscript, 2012)Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P., Levinson, S.: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambrige University Press (1978)Google Scholar
  4. Farrell, J.: Meaning and credibility in cheap talk games. Games and Economic Behavior 5 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U.: The Nature of Human Altruism. Nature 425 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. Homans, G.: Social Behavior as Exchange. The American Journal of Sociology 63(6) (1958)Google Scholar
  7. Jag̈er, G.: Game-Theoretical Pragmatics. In: Handbook of Logic and Language, 2nd edn. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  8. McCabe, K., Rigdon, M., Smith, V.: Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 52 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. Pinker, Nowak, Lee: The Logic of Indirect Speech. PNAS (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Quinley, J.: Politeness and Trust Games. In: Student Papers Session, Proceedings of ESSLLI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. Rand, D., Ohtsuki, H., Nowak, M.: Direct reciprocity with costly punishment: Generous tit-for-tat prevails. Journal of Theoretical Biology (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Sacks, H.: Lectures on Conversation. Blackwell Publishers (1992)Google Scholar
  13. Van Rooij, R.: Being polite is a handicap: Towards a game theoretical analysis of polite linguistic behavior. TARK 9 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Traum, D., Allen, J.: Discourse Obligations in Dialogue Processing. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 1994), Las Cruces, New Mexico (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Asher
    • 1
  • Jason Quinley
    • 2
  1. 1.CNRS, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse et Université Paul SabatierFrance
  2. 2.University of TübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations