Speaker Plans, Linguistic Contexts, and Indirect Speech Acts

  • Andrew McCafferty
Part of the Studies in Cognitive Systems book series (COGS, volume 5)


Some indirect speech acts are unrelated to the semantic meaning of the sentence uttered, how ever widely we construe “semantic meaning”. Searle gives this example:
  1. A:

    Let’s go to the movies tonight.

  2. B:

    I have to study for an exam.

    (Searle, Indirect Speech Acts [Searle75])

The sentence “I have to study for an exam” is not lexically tied to turning down proposals to go to the movies. There is no sense in which this is part of its meaning. However, in this context B uses it to do just this.


Domain Plan Linguistic Context Semantic Meaning Default Rule 14The Default 
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. Allen, J. and C. Perrault. “Analysing intentions in utterances,” Artificial Intelligence 15, 143–178, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. “Recognizing intentions from natural language utterances,” Computational Models of Discourse, M. Brady and R. Berwick, eds., pp. 108–166, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. Belnap, N. “Conditional assertion and restricted uantification,” Nous IV, pp. 1–13, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. Belnap, N. and T. Steel. The Logic of Questions and Answers, Yale Press, 1976.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand, M. “Intentional action and plans,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy X, P. French, et al., eds., Minnesota University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, P. and C. Perrault. “Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts,” Cognitive Science 3, pp 177–212, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, P. and H. Levesque. “Speech acts and the recognition of shared plans,” Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pp. 263 271, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. Gazdar, G. “Speech act assignment,” Elements of Discourse Understanding, A. Joshi, B. Webber, I. Sag, eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–83, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. Grice, H. “Meaning,” Philosophical Review 66, pp. 377–388, 1957.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H. “Logic and conversation” Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Academic Press, pp. 41–58, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Grosz, B. and C. Sidner. “Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse,” Computational Linguistics 12, pp. 175–204, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. Hamblin, C. “Mathematical models of dialogue,” Theoria 37, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. Hinkleman, E. “A plan-based approach to conversational implicature,” unpublished.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbs, J. “Towards an understanding of coherence in dialogue,” Strategies for Natural Language Processing, W. Lehnert and M. Ringle, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, pp. 223–243, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. Ilobbs, J. “On the coherence and structure of discourse,” The Structure of Discourse, L. Polanyi, ed., Ablex, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. Kautz, H. “A Formal theory of plan recognition,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, S. Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. “Storekeeping in a language game,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, pp. 339–359, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Litman, D. “Linguistic coherence: a plan-based alternative,” Coling 86, pp. 215–223, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. Litman, D. and J. Allen. “A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversation,” Cognitive Science 11, pp. 163–200, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrault, C. and J. Allen. “A plan based analysis of indirect speech acts,” Computational Linguistics 6,pp. 167–182, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. Polanyi, L., ed., The Structure of Discourse,Ablex, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J. Indirect speech acts, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan, Academic Press, pp. 59–82, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. “Presuppositions,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, pp. 447–457, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stalnaker, R. “Pragmatic presuppostions,” Semantics and Philosophy, M. Munitz and P. Unger, eds., Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. Thomason, R. Accommodation, Conversational Planning, and Implicature, (draft), unpublished.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew McCafferty

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations