Scorekeeping in a Language Game

  • David Lewis
Part of the Springer Series in Language and Communication book series (SSLAN, volume 6)


At any stage in a well-run conversation, a certain amount is presupposed. The parties to the conversation take it for granted; or at least they purport to, whether sincerely or just “for the sake of the argument”. Presuppositions can be created or destroyed in the course of a conversation. This change is rule-governed, at least up to a point. The presuppositions at time t′ depend, in a way about which at least some general principles can be laid down, on the presuppositions at an earlier time t and on the course of the conversation (and nearby events) between t and t′.


Score Function Definite Description Language Game Constitutive Rule Home Team 
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.
    L. Åqvist: Performatives and Verifiability by the Use of Language (Filos-ofiska Studier, Uppsala, 1972)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971) 220–39Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Ballmer: in Linguistische Pragmatik, ed. by D. Wunderlich (Athenäum-Verlag, 1972)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Ballmer: Logical Grammar: with Special Considerations of Topics in Context Change (North-Holland, 1978)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Chastain: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7, 194–269 (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Fillmore: in Linguistik 1971, ed. by K. Hyldgaard-Jensen (Athenäum-Verlag, 1972)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Fillmore: in Pragmatik/Pragmatics II, ed. by S.J. Schmidt (Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1976)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Goldman: Journal of Philosophy 73, 771–91 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Hedenius: Theoria 29, 1–22 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Isard: in Formal Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by E.L. Keenan (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1974) 287–96Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Kratzer: Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–55 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Kripke: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2, 255–76 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    E.J. Lemmon: Analysis 22, 86–89 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Lewis: Noûs 13 (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Lewis: Counterfactuals (Blackwell, Oxford, 1973) 111–7Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Lewis: Synthese 22, 18–67 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Lewis: in Essays to Honour Hintikka, ed. by R. Hilpinen, I. Niiniluoto, M.B. Provence, E. Saarinen (Reidel, Dordrecht)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. McCawley: Syntax and Semantics 11 (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Pinkal: in Semantics from Different Points of View, ed. by R. Bäuerle, U. Egli, A. von Stechow (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Stalnaker: Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 447–57 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Stalnaker: in Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by M.K. Munitz, P.K. Unger (New York University Press, New York, 1974) 197–213Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P.K. Unger, Ignorance (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975) 65–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations