Optimal assertions, and what they implicate. A uniform game theoretic approach

To determine what the speaker in a cooperative dialog meant with his assertion, on top of what he explicitly said, it is crucial that we assume that the assertion he gave was optimal. In determining optimal assertions we assume that dialogs are embedded in decision problems (van Rooij 2003) and use backwards induction for calculating them (Benz 2006). In this paper, we show that in terms of our framework we can account for several types of implicatures in a uniform way, suggesting that there is no need for an independent linguistic theory of generalized implicatures. In the final section, we show how we can embed our theory in the framework of signaling games, and how it relates with other game theoretic analyses of implicatures.

[1]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[2]  Ruth M. Kempson,et al.  Negation, Ambiguity and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction , 1984 .

[3]  D. Schiffrin.  Meaning, form, and use in context : linguistic applications , 1984 .

[4]  Julia Hirschberg,et al.  A theory of scalar implicature , 1985 .

[5]  H. V. VAN TONGEREN.  [The use of language]. , 1986, Tijdschrift voor diergeneeskunde.

[6]  Robert Gibbons,et al.  A primer in game theory , 1992 .

[7]  Andreas Blume,et al.  Evolutionary Stability in Games of Communication , 1993 .

[8]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature , 1998 .

[9]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Relevance theory : applications and implications , 1998 .

[10]  Arthur Merin,et al.  Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking: some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics , 1999 .

[11]  木村 和夫.  Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[12]  S. Levinson.  Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature , 2001 .

[13]  I. Noveck.  When children are more logical than adults: experimental investigations of scalar implicature , 2001, Cognition.

[14]  S. Crain,et al.  The acquisition of disjunction: Evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures , 2001 .

[15]  I. Noveck,et al.  Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study , 2003, Brain and Language.

[16]  Robert van Rooy.  Questioning to Resolve Decision Problems , 2003 .

[17]  A. Papafragou,et al.  Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface , 2003, Cognition.

[18]  Robert van Rooy.  Relevance and Bidirectional Optimality Theory , 2004 .

[19]  Robert van Rooy,et al.  SIGNALLING GAMES SELECT HORN STRATEGIES , 2004 .

[20]  Katrin Schulz,et al.  Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences , 2004, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[21]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  The handbook of pragmatics , 2004 .

[22]  Lewis Bott,et al.  Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences , 2004 .

[23]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  ARE SCALAR IMPLICATURES COMPUTED ONLINE , 2005 .

[24]  John N. Williams,et al.  Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences , 2006, Cognition.

[25]  Robert Stalnaker.  Saying and Meaning, Cheap Talk and Credibility , 2006 .

[26]  Anton Benz,et al.  Utility and Relevance of Answers , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Franke,et al.  Optimality-Theoretic and Game-Theoretic Approaches to Implicature , 2006 .

[28]  Gerhard Jäger,et al.  Chapter 7: Game Dynamics Connects Semantics And Pragmatics , 2007 .

[29]  Robin Clark,et al.  Number sense and quantifier interpretation , 2007 .

[30]  G. Jäger,et al.  Game dynamics connects semantics and pragmatics , 2022 .