Abstract
A theory of communication seeks to explain the effects that communicative acts have on the interlocutors. Typically, communicative acts change the beliefs, desires, and intentions of the dialogue participants. The precise effects on the participant’s mental state depend on the semantic content of the utterance, and the initial beliefs, desires, and intentions that the participants bring to the discourse. The question then arises of how best to construct a formal model of this mental-state revision process. This paper considers two alternatives for such a model: deductive and abductive. A deductive default model starts with a description of the propositional content of the utterance and the original beliefs and intentions of the participants, and describes the conclusions that follow from these premises, provided these conclusions are consistent with the theory. An abductive model begins with an observation of a speech act, and entertains explanations as to why a speaker would produce it. Such explanations consist of hypotheses about the mental state of the speaker that would justify the observed speech act as a rational act. The paper concludes that a deductive model is more suitable for the construction of a competence theory than an abductive model because of the difficulty of accounting for insincere acts within the scope of the abductive theory. Abductive theories, on the other hand, are most suitable for reasoning about causal relationships between hypotheses and observed effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Appelt, D. & Konolige, K.,: ‘A practical nonmonotonic theory for reasoning about speech acts’, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting. Association for Computational Linguistics, 170–178 (1988)
Charniak, E. & Goldman, R.: ‘A semantics for probabilistic quantifier-free first-order languages with particular application to story understanding’, Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1074–1079 (1989)
Clark, H. & Marshal, C: ‘Definite reference and mutual knowledge’. In Joshi, A., Sag, I. & Webber, B., Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1978)
Cohen, P.: ‘On Knowing What to Say: Planning Speech Acts’. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (1978)
Cohen, P. & Levesque, H.: ‘Rational interaction as the basis for communication’. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M., Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1990)
Heim, L: ‘File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness’. In Bäuerle et al., Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Walther de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany (1983)
Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Martin, P. & Edwards, D.: ‘Interpretation as abduction’, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 95–103 (1988)
Hobbs, J.: ‘An improper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the ACL, 57–63 (1983)
Konolige, K.: ‘On the relation between default and autoepistemic logic’, Artificial Intelligence, 35, 3, 343–382 (1988)
Konolige, K.: ‘Hierarchic autoepistemic theories for nonmonotonic reasoning: Preliminary report’. In Reinfrank, M., DeKleer, J., Ginsberg, M., & Sande-wall, E., Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 42–59 (1989)
McDermott, D.: ‘Nonmonotonic logic II: Nonmonotonic modal theories’, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 29, 1, 33–57 (1982)
Moore, R.: ‘Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic’, Artificial Intelligence, 25, 1, 75–94 (1985)
Perrault, R.: ‘An application of default logic to speech act theory’. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M., Intention and Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1990)
Perrault, R. & Cohen, P.: ‘Inaccurate reference’. In Joshi, A., editor, Formalizing Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1980)
Reiter, R.: ‘A logic for default reasoning’, Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132 (1980)
Thomason, R.: ‘Accommodation, meaning, and implicature’. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J.& Pollack, M., Intention and Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 325–363 (1990)
VanLehn, K.: ‘Determining the scope of English quantifiers’. Technical report AI-TR-483, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (1978)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Appelt, D.E. (1992). Communication and Attitude Revision. In: Ortony, A., Slack, J., Stock, O. (eds) Communication from an Artificial Intelligence Perspective. NATO ASI Series, vol 100. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58146-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58146-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63484-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-58146-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive