Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Non Cooperative Basis of Implicatures

  • Chapter
Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 95))

Abstract

This chapter presents a model according to which implicatures, which are traditionally analyzed in terms of cooperative principles, remain rational in strongly non cooperative settings.

Thanks to LACL 2012 reviewers and reviewers for the Springer volume for helpful comments. This research was supported by STAC, ERC Grant 269427

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Asher (2012) or Schulz (2007) for details.

  2. 2.

    Griceans can think of SDRT roughly as a large-scale development of the principle of relevance.

  3. 3.

    In SDRT terms, IQAP is right veridical.

References

  • Afantenos, S., Asher, N., Benamara, F., Bras, M., Fabre, C., Ho-dac, M., et al. (2012). An empirical resource for discovering cognitive principles of discourse organisation: the annodis corpus. In Proceedings of LREC 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J., & Litman, D. (1987). A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversations. Cognitive Science, 11(2), 163–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. (2012). Implicatures and discourse structure. Lingua 132, 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.001

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2012). A cognitive model of conversation. In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (Seinedial), Paris, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., & Quinley, J. (2011). Begging questions, their answers and basic cooperativity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS), Japan, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., & Reese, B. (2005). Negative bias in polar questions. In E. Maier, C. Bary, & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of SuB9, (pp. 30–43). http://www.ru.nl/ncs/sub9

  • Asher, N., Sher, I., & Williams, M. (2001). Game theoretic foundations for pragmatic defaults. In Amsterdam Formal Semantics Colloquium, Amsterdam, December 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N., Venant, A., Muller, P., & Afantenos, S. D. (2011). Complex discourse units and their semantics. In Contstraints in Discourse (CID 2011), Agay-Roches Rouges, France, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz, A., Jäger, G., & van Rooij, R. (Eds.). (2005). Game theory and pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals and language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadilhac, A., Asher, N., & Benamara, F. (2012). Annotating preferences in negotiation dialogues. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, (pp. 105–113).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • duVerle, D., & Prendinger, H. (2009). A novel discourse parser based on support vector machine classification. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP, August 2009, (pp. 665–673). Suntec, Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P/P09/P09-1075

  • Franke, M. (2008). Meaning and inference in case of conflict. In K. Balogh (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th ESSLLI Student Session (pp. 65–74).

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M., de Jager, T., & van Rooij, R. (2009). Relevance in cooperation and conflict. Journal of Logic and Language.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. (1996). Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In Seligman, J., & Westerst ahl, D. (Eds.), Logic, language and computation (vol. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, (vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1990). Plans for discourse. In J. Morgan, P. R. Cohen, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication, (pp. 417–444). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. (1987). Imperatives. New York: Blackwells.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (2009). Agreement, disputes and commitment in dialogue. Journal of Semantics, 26(2), 109–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochbaum, K. E. (1998). A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics, 24(4), 525–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K., Rigdon, M., & Smith, V. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52(2), 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, P., Afantenos, S., Denis, P., & Asher, N. (2012). Constrained decoding for text-level discourse parsing. In COLING - 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Mumbai, Inde, 2012. http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00750611

  • Parikh, P. (1991). Communication and strategic inference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(5), 473–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parikh, P. (2000). Communication, meaning and interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 185–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parikh, P. (2001). The use of language. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinley, J. (2011). Politeness and Trust Games, Student Papers Session, Proceedings of ESSLLI 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.H. Yoon, & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics, 91–136. The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, K. (2007). Minimal Models in Semantics and Pragmatics: Free Choice, Exhaustivity, and Conditionals (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subba, R., & Di Eugenio, B. (2009). An effective discourse parser that uses rich linguistic information. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL (pp. 566–574). ACL, 2009. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N/N09/N09-1064

  • van Rooij, R. (2004). Signalling games select horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 493–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooy, R. (2003). Being polite is a handicap: towards a game theoretical analysis of polite linguistic behavior. In TARK (pp. 45–58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlster, W. (Ed.). (2000). Verbmobil: Foundations of speech-to-speech translation. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, CNRS, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

    Nicholas Asher

Authors
  1. Nicholas Asher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas Asher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

    Elin McCready

  2. Department of English, Naruto University of Education, Naruto, Tokushima, Japan

    Katsuhiko Yabushita

  3. Center for the Advancement of Higher Education, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan

    Kei Yoshimoto

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asher, N. (2014). The Non Cooperative Basis of Implicatures. In: McCready, E., Yabushita, K., Yoshimoto, K. (eds) Formal Approaches to Semantics and Pragmatics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 95. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8813-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation