Abstract
As a dialogue proceeds, utterances will be interpreted relative to a body of assumed common beliefs and suppositions. In keeping with a computational view of mind we shall suppose that these shared common beliefs and suppositions are represented in some way in the interpreter as the sentences of some language. Let a set of sentences representing common beliefs and suppositions be called a context. Utterances will be interpreted relative to contexts, but contexts, in turn, will change as a result of utterances. In the simplest case a context will grow. That is what will happen when an utterance in no way conflicts with the prior context. The resulting context will include the prior context together with representations of what is conveyed by the utterance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alchourrón, C, Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, P. (1985) On the theory of logic change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–30.
Beaver, D. (1997) Presupposition. In J. Van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (1997) Handbook of Logic and Language Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fine K. (1975) Vagueness, truth, and logic. Synthese 30, 265–300.
Gärdenfors, P. (1988) Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gazdar, G. (1979a) Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
Gazdar, G. (1979b) A solution to the projection problem. In: C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen (1979) Syntax and Semantics II: Presupposition New York: Academic Press, 57–89.
Grice, H. P. (1975) Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan (1975) Syntax and Semantics, 41–58, New York: Academic Press.
Heim, I. (1983) On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Volume 2, 114–126.
Kamp, J. A. W. (1975) Two theories about adjectives. In: E. Keenan (1975) Formal Semantics of Natural Languages Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (1995) From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kamp, H. and Partee, B. (1995) Prototype theory and compositionality Cognition 57(2), 129–191.
Karttunen, L. (1973) Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 169–93.
Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. (1979) Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics 11, 1–56.
Karttunen, L. and Peters, S., Requiem for presupposition. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 360–371.
Levinson, S. C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. (1979) Scorekeeping in a language game. The Journal of Philosophical Logic (8) 339–359. Reprinted in D. Lewis (1983) Philosophical Papers: Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marr, D. (1982) Vision: a Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Pinkal, M. (1983) On the limits of lexical meaning. In: R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow Meaning, Use and Interpretation Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pinkal, M. (1995) Logic and Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sorenson, R. (1988) Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Williamson, T. (1994) Vagueness. London: Routledge.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kyburg, A., Morreau, M. (1999). Vague Utterances and Context Change. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds) Computing Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 73. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0290-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4231-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive