Meaning and Demonstration

In demonstration, speakers use real-world activity both for its practical effects and to help make their points. The demonstrations of origami mathematics, for example, reconfigure pieces of paper by folding, while simultaneously allowing their author to signal geometric inferences. Demonstration challenges us to explain how practical actions can get such precise significance and how this meaning compares with that of other representations. In this paper, we propose an explanation inspired by David Lewis’s characterizations of coordination and scorekeeping in conversation. In particular, we argue that words, gestures, diagrams and demonstrations can function together as integrated ensembles that contribute to conversation, because interlocutors use them in parallel ways to coordinate updates to the conversational record.

[1]  Randi A. Engle,et al.  Toward a theory of multimodal communication combining speech, gestures, diagrams, and demonstrations in instructional explanations , 2000 .

[2]  Craige Roberts,et al.  Information Structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics , 2012 .

[3]  R. Jarvella,et al.  The Process of language understanding , 1985 .

[4]  László Dezsö,et al.  Universal Grammar , 1981, Certainty in Action.

[5]  A. Kendon Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance , 2004 .

[6]  Matthew Stone,et al.  Discourse coherence and gesture interpretation , 2009 .

[7]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[8]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[9]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[10]  Sun-Joo Shin,et al.  The logical status of diagrams , 1995 .

[11]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Intentions in Communication. , 1992 .

[12]  Jerry R. Hobbs Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  J. Bavelas,et al.  Visible Acts of Meaning , 2000 .

[14]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[15]  Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1989 .

[16]  Matthew Stone,et al.  DEIXIS (EVEN WITHOUT POINTING) , 2013 .

[17]  Kevin Scharp,et al.  Scorekeeping in a defective language game , 2005 .

[18]  Robert J. Lang,et al.  One-, Two-, and Multi-Fold Origami Axioms , 2006 .

[19]  Jerry R. Hobbs Literature And Cognition , 1990 .

[20]  C. Barker The Dynamics of Vagueness , 2002 .

[21]  Andrew Kehler,et al.  Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar , 2002, CSLI lecture notes series.

[22]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology , 1984 .

[23]  Matthew Stone,et al.  A Formal Semantic Analysis of Gesture , 2009, J. Semant..

[24]  Gabriel Greenberg Beyond Resemblance , 2013 .

[25]  D. McNeill Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought , 1992 .

[26]  Robert J. Lang Origami and Geometric Constructions , 2003 .

[27]  David Lewis Convention: A Philosophical Study , 1986 .

[28]  Matthew Stone,et al.  Imagination and Convention: Distinguishing Grammar and Inference in Language , 2014 .

[29]  Roger C. Alperin A Mathematical Theory of Origami Constructions and Numbers , 2000 .

[30]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[31]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Making sense of nonce sense , 1983 .