Extended Game-Theoretical Semantics

  • Manuel Rebuschi
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 25)


A new version of Game-Theoretical Semantics (GTS) is put forward where game rules are extended to the non-logical constants of sentences. The resulting theory, together with a refinement of our criteria of identity for functions, provide the technical basis for a game-based conception of linguistic meaning and interpretation.


Function Symbol Definite Description Winning Strategy Relation Symbol Competent Speaker 
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.



Acknowledgments Previous and partial versions of this work were presented on several occasions during the past years—notably at APLI 2006 (Rijeka, Croatia), at JSM 2007 (Paris, France), and at the Universidade Nova de Lisboa (2008). I wish to thank Denis Bonnay, Paul Egré, Bertram Kienzle, Paul Gochet, Helge Rückert, Anna Sierszulska, and Tero Tulenheimo for their comments on earlier versions of this paper and for many fruitful discussions. All errors remain mine.


  1. 1.
    van Benthem, Johan. 2006. “The Epistemic Logic of IF Games.” In The Philosophy of Jakko Hintikka, The Library of Living Philosophers Volume XXX, edited by R.E. Auxier and L.E. Hahn, 481–512. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blass, Andreas, Nachum Dershowitz, and Yuri Gurevich. 2009. “When Are Two Algorithms the Same?.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 15(2):145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalmers, David J. 2004. “Epistemic Two-Dimensional Semantics.” Philosophical Studies 118:153–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, Robin. 2007. “Games, Quantifiers and Pronouns.” In Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning, edited by A.-V. Pietarinen, 139–59. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fodor, Jerry A. 1987. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. “Reference and Representation of Pronouns.” In Pronouns – Representation and Grammar, edited by H.J. Simon and H. Wiese, 109–35. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. “Semantics for Propositional Attitudes.” In Philosophical Logic, edited by J.W. Davis, D.J. Hockney and W.K. Wilson, 21–45. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hintikka, Jaakko. 1987. “Language Understanding and Strategic Meaning.” Synthese 73:497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hintikka, Jaakko. 2003. “A Second Generation Epistemic Logic and Its General Significance.” In Knowledge Contributors, edited by V.F. Hendricks, S.A. Pedersen, and K.F. Jørgensen, 33–55. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hintikka, Jaakko, and Jack Kulas. 1985. Anaphora and Definite Descriptions: Two Applications of Game-Theoretical Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hintikka, Jaakko, and Gabriel Sandu. 1997. “Game-Theoretical Semantics.” In Handbook of Logic and Language, edited by J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 361–410. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, Peter. 1988. “On Game-Theoretic Interactions with First-Order Knowledge Bases.” In Non-standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, edited by P. Smets, E.H. Mamdani, D. Dubois, and H. Prade, 27–54. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moschovakis, Yannis N. 1994. “Sense and Denotation as Algorithm and Value.” In Lecture Notes in Logic 2, edited by J. Oikkonen and J. Väänänen, 210–49. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muskens, Reinhard. 2005. Sense and the Computation of Reference. Linguistics and Philosophy 28:473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko, and Tero Tulenheimo. 2004. An Introduction to IF Logic. ESSLLI 2004, Nancy. Accessed July 16, 2011.
  16. 16.
    Putnam, Hilary. 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Language, Mind and Knowledge, edited by K. Gunderson, 131–93. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rebuschi, Manuel. 2008. “Contenu étroit, mécanisme et fonctions de choix.” Philosophie 100:77–94.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rebuschi, Manuel. 2009. “Modalités épistémiques et modalités aléthiques chez Hintikka.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 250:395–404.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. “Quantifier Scope. How Labor Is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sandu, Gabriel. 1997. “On the Theory of Anaphora: Dynamic Predicate Logic vs. Game-Theoretical Semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 20:147–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. “Scopal Independence: A Note on Branching & Island-Escaping Readings of Indefinites & Disjunctions.” Journal of Semantics 23(3):281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stanley, Jason and Zoltán Gendler Szabó. 2000. “On Quantifier Domain Restriction.” Mind & Language 15(2&3):219–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winter, Yoad. 2004 “Functional Quantification.” Research on Language and Computation 2:331–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.L.H.S.P. – Archives H. PoincaréNancy UniversityNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations