Abstract
We give derivations of two formal models of Gricean Quantity1 implicature and strong exhaustivity (Van Rooij and Schulz, 2004; Schulz and Van Rooij, 2006), in bidirectional optimality theory and in a signalling games framework. We show that, under a unifying model based on signalling games, these interpretative strategies are game-theoretic equilibria when the speaker is known to be respectively minimally and maximally expert in the matter at hand. That is, in this framework the optimal strategy for communication depends on the degree of knowledge the speaker is known to have concerning the question she is answering.In addition, and most importantly, we give a game-theoretic characterisation of the interpretation rule Grice (formalising Quantity1 implicature), showing that under natural conditions this interpretation rule occurs in the unique equilibrium play of the signalling game.
Highlights
An utterance in context is typically interpreted as having, in addition to its conventional, context-independent meaning, a conversational implicature that goes beyond the truth-conditional meaning
In this paper we examine a formal implementation of quantity implicature and exhaustive interpretation (originally proposed in the unpublished MA thesis of Katrin Schulz, and extended for exhaustification by van Rooij and Schulz (2004), Schulz and van Rooij (2006)), placed in the contexts of bidirectional optimality theory (Bi-OT) and of signalling games
Bidirectional Optimality Theory (Bi-OT), first introduced by Blutner (2000), states that conventional language use is constrained by a bidirectional optimisation problem: a speaker should choose an optimal message to express her intent, and a hearer should choose the optimal interpretation for the message he hears
Summary
An utterance in context is typically interpreted as having, in addition to its conventional, context-independent meaning, a conversational implicature that goes beyond the truth-conditional meaning. The strongest conclusion that can be drawn via Quantity is that the speaker does not know that John has more children; the exhaustive interpretation of the utterance says instead that she knows that he does not have more children. To reach this stronger interpretation various authors (see for example Spector 2003; van Rooij and Schulz 2004; Sauerland 2004) have suggested a two-stage approach: first the weak epistemic reading is derived by standard Gricean reasoning, this is strengthened by the assumption that the speaker is an expert in the matter at hand.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
