Advertisement

Abstract

In this paper, the notion of “the content of a dialogue” is shown to be problematic in light of the phenomena of semantic coordination in dialogue, and the associated notion of semantic plasticity – the ability of meanings to change as a result of language use. Specifically, it appears that any notion of content in dialogue based on classical model-theoretical semantics will be insufficient for capturing semantic plasticity. An alternative formal semantics, type theory with records (TTR) is briefly introduced and is show to be better equipped to deal with semantic coordination and plasticity. However, it is also argued that any account of content in dialogue which takes semantic coordination seriously will also need to consider the problems it raises for some concepts central to traditional notions of meaning, namely inference and truth.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher, N.: Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010), http://www.cambridge.org/ Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003), http://www.cambridge.org/ Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brennan, S.E., Clark, H.H.: Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22, 482–493 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briscoe, E.J. (ed.): Linguistic Evolution through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002), http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/briscoe2002editedbook.html Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chierchia, G., Turner, R.: Semantics and property theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3) (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, E.V.: Young children’s uptake of new words in conversation. Language in Society 36, 157–182 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, E.: The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, E.V., Wong, A.D.W.: Pragmatic directions about language use: Offers of words and relations. Language in Society 31, 181–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, H.H., Wilkes-Gibbs, D.: Refering as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper, R.: Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and Computation 3, 333–362 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper, R.: Type theory with records and unification-based grammar. In: Hamm, F., Kepser, S. (eds.) Logics for Linguistic Structures. Mouton de Gruyter (2008), http://www.ling.gu.se/~cooper/records/ttrhpsg.pdf
  12. 12.
    Cooper, R., Larsson, S.: Compositional and ontological semantics in learning from corrective feedback and explicit definition. In: Edlund, J., Gustafson, J., Hjalmarsson, A., Skantze, G. (eds.) Proceedings of DiaHolmia, 2009 Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coquand, T., Pollack, R., Takeyama, M.: A logical framework with dependently typed records. Fundamenta Informaticae XX, 1–22 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Diggelen, J., Beun, R.J., Dignum, F., van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.J.: Ontology negotiation in heterogeneous multi-agent systems: The anemone system. Applied Ontology 2, 267–303 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garrod, S.C., Anderson, A.: Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27, 181–218 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Healey, P.: Expertise or expertese?: The emergence of task-oriented sub-languages. In: Shafto, M., Langley, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 301–306 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larsson, S.: Coordinating on ad-hoc semantic systems in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Larsson, S.: Formalizing the dynamics of semantic systems in dialogue. In: Cooper, R., Kempson, R. (eds.) Language in Flux - Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution. College Publications, London (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsson, S., Cooper, R.: Towards a formal view of corrective feedback. In: Alishahi, A., Poibeau, T., Villavicencio, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Acquisition, EACL, pp. 1–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lascarides, A.: Agreement, disputes and commitments in dialogue. Journal of Semantics 26, 109–158(50) (13 May 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pickering, M.J., Garrod, S.: Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(02), 169–226 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steels, L., Belpaeme, T.: Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(4), 469–489 (2005), http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/paper/steels_BBS_color.html, target Paper, discussion 489-529 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Staffan Larsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceGothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations