|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
Logic, Information and Conversation
|
|
Author:
|
Paul Piwek
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Homepage:
|
http://mcs.open.ac.uk/pp2464
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
Eindhoven University of Technology
, Institute for Perception Research
|
|
Degree Date:
|
1998
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Pragmatics
|
|
Director(s):
|
Robbert-Jan Beun
Don Bouwhuis
Harry C. Bunt
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
The dissertation consists of three parts: I Logic, II Information and III Conversation.
In the first part I describe the main tool which is used in the dissertation for analysing conversations, i.e., Type Systems (in particular, Typed Lambda Calculi/Constructive Type Theory). Type Systems can be seen as a higher order and proof-theoretic variant of Kamp's Discourse Representation Theory. The logical orientation of the approach is motivated by the assumption that a conversation is an activity in which two or more interlocutors attempt (but not necessarily succeed) to construct a logically consistent common ground.
In part II, the machinery which was introduced in part I is applied to three different areas in the study of conversation: pressupposition, answerhood and accent. I demonstrate that these apparently disparate phenomena can be modelled in terms of a (formalized) notion of an informational gap. It is shown that the maintenance of consistency plays a crucial role when it comes to the use of informational gaps in conversation.
Part III is concerned with the patterns in terms of which conversation and discourse analysts have described conversations. These patterns are explained by means of a formal model of how the common ground evolves in the course of a conversation. In particular, I consider the common ground which concerns the commitments which the interlocutors take on (following Hamblin).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 28-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
