1. bookVolume 36 (2014): Issue 1 (March 2014)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Collective Referential Intentionality in the Semantics of Dialogue

Published Online: 12 Apr 2014
Page range: 143 - 159
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
08 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English

The concept of a dialogue is considered in general terms from the standpoint of its referential presuppositions. The semantics of dialogue implies that dialogue participants must generally have a collective intentionality of agreed-upon references that is minimally sufficient for them to be able to disagree about other things, and ideally for outstanding disagreements to become clearer at successive stages of the dialogue. These points are detailed and illustrated in a fictional dialogue, in which precisely these kinds of referential confusions impede progress in shared understanding. It is only through a continuous exchange of question and answer in this dialogue case study that the meanings of key terms and anaphorical references are disambiguated, and a relevantly complete collective intentionality of shared meaning between dialogue participants is achieved. The importance of a minimally shared referential semantics for the terms entering into reasoning and argument in dialogue contexts broadly construed cannot be over-estimated. Where to draw the line between referential agreement and disagreement within any chosen dialogue, as participants work toward better mutual understanding in clearing up referential incongruities, is sometimes among the dialogue’s main points of dispute.

Keywords

Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2005). Logics of Conversation, Studies in Natural Language Processing series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Berkeley, G. (2013 [1734]). Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Edited by Dale Jacquette. Toronto: Broadview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bohm, D. (2004). On Dialogue (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Garrod, S. & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying What You Mean in Dialogue: A Study in Conceptual and Semantic Coordination. Cognition, 27, 181-218.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H.P. (1969). Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions’. The Philosophical Review, 68, 147-177.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (1993a). A Turing Test Conversation. Philosophy, 68, 231-233.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (1993b). A Dialogue on Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise’. Argumentation, 7, 273-290.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (2009). Dialogues on the Ethics of Capital Punishment. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (2012). A Dialogue on Metaphysics. Philosophy Now, 92, 33.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (2013a). Socrates on the Moral Mischief of Misology. Argumentation, 27. On-Line First at Springer DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9298-7, and forthcoming in print.Search in Google Scholar

Jacquette, D. (2013b). Review ofMaurice A. Finocchiaro,Meta-Argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation, 27. On-Line First at Springer DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9301-3, and forthcoming in print.Search in Google Scholar

Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1952). Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem. The Journal of Philosophy, 49, 489-498.Search in Google Scholar

Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1954). Some Aspects of Philosophical Disagreement. Dialectica, 8, 245-257.Search in Google Scholar

Johnstone, H.W., Jr. (1996). Locke andWhately on the Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation, 10, 89-97.Search in Google Scholar

Kurkela, K. (1986). Note and Tone: A Semantic Analysis of Conventional Music Notation. Helsinki: Suomen Musiikkitieteellinen Seura Musikvetenskapliga S¨allskapet I Finland.Search in Google Scholar

Minsky, M. (1969). Semantic Information Processing. Cambridge: The MIT (Bradford Books) Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ong, W. J. (2005 [1958]). Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Plato (1981). Meno. Translation in G.M.A. Grube, Plato, Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Redmond, J. & Fontaine, M. (2011). How to Play Dialogues: An Introduction to Dialogical Logic. London: College Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing With Ambiguities of Underspecification: Construction, Interpretation and Deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10, 123-179.Search in Google Scholar

Rueckert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a Dynamic Framework for Logic. London: College Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York (SUNY) Press. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo