ASHER and ALEX LASCARIDES INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS
نویسنده
چکیده
In this paper, we address several puzzles concerning speech acts, particularly indirect speech acts. We show how a formal semantic theory of discourse interpretation can be used to define speech acts and to avoid murky issues concerning the metaphysics of action. We provide a formally precise definition of indirect speech acts, including the subclass of so-called conventionalized indirect speech acts. This analysis draws heavily on parallels between phenomena at the speech act level and the lexical level. First, we argue that, just as co-predication shows that some words can behave linguistically as if they’re ‘simultaneously’ of incompatible semantic types, certain speech acts behave this way too. Secondly, as Horn and Bayer (1984) and others have suggested, both the lexicon and speech acts are subject to a principle of blocking or “preemption by synonymy”: Conventionalized indirect speech acts can block their ‘paraphrases’ from being interpreted as indirect speech acts, even if this interpretation is calculable from Gricean-style principles. We provide a formal model of this blocking, and compare it with existing accounts of lexical blocking.
منابع مشابه
Indirect Speech Acts
In this paper, we address several puzzles concerning speech acts, particularly indirect speech acts. We show how a formal semantic theory of discourse interpretation can be used to define speech acts and to avoid murky issues concerning the metaphysics of action. We provide a formally precise definition of indirect speech acts, including the subclass of so-called conventionalized indirect speec...
متن کاملAgreement and Disputes in Dialogue
In this paper we define agreement in terms of shared public commitments, and implicit agreement is conditioned on the semantics of the relational speech acts (e.g., Narration, Explanation) that each agent performs. We provide a consistent interpretation of disputes, and updating a logical form with the current utterance always involves extending it and not revising it, even if the current utter...
متن کاملAgreement, Disputes and Commitments in Dialogue
This paper provides a logically precise analysis of agreement and disputes in dialogue. The semantics distinguishes among the public commitments of each dialogue agent, including commitments to relational speech acts or rhetorical relations (e.g., Narration, Explanation, Correction). Agreement is defined to be the shared entailments of the agents’ public commitments. We show that this makes pre...
متن کاملAspectual viewpoints, speech act functions and discourse structure
Introduction Most current formal theories of discourse incorporate some insight concerning the contribution of aspect to discourse structure, and many draw upon Hans Kamp’s analysis of the aspectual contribution of tenses, as well as Vlach’s notion of tenses as aspect-shift operators (cf. Vlach 1981). Thus, Kamp & Rohrer (1983) argue that the French imparfait acts as a ‘stativizer’, mapping non...
متن کاملExtracting and Modelling Preferences from Dialogue
Dialogue moves influence and are influenced by the agents’ preferences. We propose a method for modelling this interaction. We motivate and describe a recursive method for calculating the preferences that are expressed, sometimes indirectly, through the speech acts performed. These yield partial CP-nets, which provide a compact and efficient method for computing how preferences influence each o...
متن کامل