DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigating the Syntax of Speech Acts: Embedding Illocutionary Force

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigating the Syntax of Speech Acts: Embedding Illocutionary Force View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by White Rose E-theses Online Investigating the syntax of speech acts: Embedding illocutionary force Rebecca Louise Woods Doctor of Philosophy University of York Language and Linguistic Science February 2016 Abstract This dissertation examines the notion of illocutionary force and whether it is embeddable by examining the syntax, semantics and pragmatic effects of a range of root-like embedded constructions. Though illocutionary force has long been considered a property exclusive to root clauses, the examination and analysis of English embedded inverted questions and other quasi-quotational constructions cross-linguistically show that this is not the case. The contributions of this dissertation are three-fold: a refined definition of independent illocutionary force; a syntax for non-root complement clauses that carry independent illo- cutionary force; and a model for the discourse that captures the effects of these clauses. I also work towards understanding how the instantiation of independent illocutionary force in such constructions leads to their restricted distribution. Illocutionary force may be represented both lexically and through syntactic processes such as verb movement. I argue that verb movement to Forceo is an interface operation| it occurs in syntax but is directly linked to a specific discourse interpretation. Building on Krifka (2014), illocutionary force is the expression of who takes responsibility for as- serting or responding to a proposition or set of propositions, according to a given modal base. When illocutionary force is independently expressed on an embedded clause, the perspective holder and responsibility taker(s) are unambiguous and not mixed. In con- trast, standard embedded clauses may be ambiguous as to who takes responsibility and may contain multiple perspectives. Clauses with independent illocutionary force have an expanded C-layer that is nonethe- less smaller than that in true root clauses. An Illocutionary Act head selects for the em- bedded ForceP, determines illocutionary force and, obliquely, determines the restricted dis- tribution of quasi-quotational constructions. A range of facts show that quasi-quotational constructions are truly embedded but are not direct objects of the matrix verb. Instead, they are in close apposition with a nominal direct object. This structure accounts for the properties of quasi-quotational constructions as entities that refer to a conversational move proffered in the relevant discourse, following Roberts's (1996, 2012) Question Under Discussion framework. 2 Contents Abstract 2 Contents 3 List of Tables 7 Acknowledgements 9 Author's Declaration 13 1 Introduction 15 2 Representing Discourse Participants: The History of an Idea 18 2.1 Introduction . 18 2.2 Early speech act theory: the philosophers . 21 2.3 Linguists on speech acts and representing speech . 34 2.3.1 Ross (1970) and Fillmore (1975) . 34 2.3.2 Considering quotation: Partee (1973) and others . 38 2.3.3 Returning to Ross? Banfield (1982) and Giorgi (2010) . 41 2.3.4 Speech acts in syntax: the revival . 46 2.3.4.1 Discourse particles as speech act heads . 49 2.3.4.2 Speech act projections: part of the clause . 53 2.4 Root phenomena and illocutionary force . 55 2.4.1 Hooper and Thompson (1973) . 55 2.4.2 Splitting hairs? Split CP hypotheses and splitting Force from Type 57 3 2.4.3 Taking responsibility: Krifka (2014) . 60 2.5 Conclusion . 62 3 Embedded Inverted Questions as Embedded Illocutionary Acts 64 3.1 Introduction . 64 3.2 Key facts on EIQs . 64 3.3 Characteristics shared with indirect speech . 69 3.4 Characteristics shared with direct speech: syntax . 77 3.5 Characteristics shared with direct speech: semantics and pragmatics . 81 3.5.1 The Question Under Discussion framework . 84 3.5.2 Perspectives . 90 3.6 Characteristics of EIQs only: syntax . 93 3.7 Characteristics of EIQs only: semantics and pragmatics . 97 3.8 Summary: EIQs as quasi-quotational structures . 101 3.9 Conclusion . 106 4 Analysis Part I: the Illocutionary Act Phrase 108 4.1 Introduction . 108 4.2 Motivations for extra structure . 109 4.2.1 Refining and extending past analyses . 109 4.2.2 Directly representing independent illocutionary force . 113 4.2.3 Roadmap for this chapter . 116 4.3 Structure and representation . 117 4.3.1 V-like structure . 118 4.3.1.1 EIQs: covert QUESTION or REQUEST operators . 121 4.3.1.2 EV2: a covert ASSERT operator . 125 4.3.2 N-like behaviour . 126 4.3.2.1 Embedded clauses as referring expressions . 126 4.3.2.2 Determiner-like properties of the IA head . 131 4.3.3 Interim summary . 134 4.4 Licensing embedded V-to-Force . 134 4 4.4.1 The IA head as Phase head . 134 4.4.2 What does it mean to represent illocutionary force syntactically? . 136 4.4.2.1 Tense and Assertion: not one but two clause-medial positions137 4.4.2.2 Splitting Tense and Assertion in child language . 139 4.4.3 V-to-Force: illocutionary, my dear Watson . 143 4.5 Summary . 153 5 Analysis Part II: the Perspectival Monster 154 5.1 Introduction . 154 5.2 Evidence for a Perspectival Monster . 155 5.2.1 Shifty predicates: a case of \coming" and \going" . 155 5.2.2 Embedded imperatives . 157 5.2.3 Reason clauses . 162 5.2.4 Summary: a Monstrous path awaits . 163 5.3 The Perspectival Monster . 167 5.3.1 In English and Spanish . 169 5.3.2 In German . 173 5.3.3 In Mainland Scandinavian . 177 5.4 Contexts and Conversational Moves . 181 5.4.1 EIQs in conversation . 187 5.4.2 German-type EV2 in conversation . 193 5.5 Summary . 193 6 Interfacing with the Matrix (Clause) 196 6.1 Introduction . 196 6.2 EIQ syntax is a matter of modification . 196 6.2.1 Introduction . 196 6.2.2 Coordination . 197 6.2.3 Restrictive relative clauses . 198 6.2.4 Apposition . 199 6.2.5 Equation/identification . 202 5 6.2.6 A return to apposition . 215 6.2.7 More on the EIQ as a definite description . 224 6.2.8 Reason clauses (again) . 231 6.2.9 Comparison with factive complements . 234 6.3 Thinking crosslinguistically . 242 6.3.1 Distributional differences . 242 6.3.2 More on the nominal complement . 249 6.3.2.1 A role for cognate nouns? . 249 6.3.2.2 Illocutionary force is in the embedded clause . 254 6.3.3 Languages that don't embed speech act phenomena . 257 6.4 Conclusions and wider consequences for linguistic theory . 259 7 Conclusion 262 8 Appendix 266 8.1 Study 1: question-answer task I . 266 8.1.1 Participants and items . 266 8.1.2 Results . 267 8.1.3 Discussion . 268 8.2 Study 2: question-answer task II . 269 8.2.1 Improvements on question-answer task I . 269 8.2.2 Participants and dissemination . 270 8.2.3 Results . 271 8.2.4 Discussion . 271 8.2.5 Extension to question-answer task II . 273 8.3 Study 2: grammaticality judgement task . 274 Abbreviations 277 Bibliography 280 6 List of Tables Table 2.1: Categories in Austin's Speech Act Theory (based on Austin 1962) Table 2.2: Classes of illocutionary acts (Austin 1962) Table 2.3: Categories in Searle's Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts (1979) Table 2.4: Hooper and Thompson's (1973) classes of verbs Table 2.5: Clause types and basic force (Portner 2004, p.238) Table 4.1: Working definitions of illocutionary forces Table 5.1: Distribution of EV2 in German and Mainland Scandinavian Table 5.2:K 1: Initial context state Table 5.3:K 2: A asserts \Sam is home" relative to K1 Table 5.4:K 3: B agrees to commit to p (Canonical move) Table 5.5:K 4: The CG is updated with p (Canonical move) Table 5.6:K 3': B denies p (Non-canonical move) Table 5.7:K 4': A and B agree to disagree relative to K3' Table 5.8:K 5: A asks \Is Sam home?" relative to the initial input context K1 Table 5.9:K 6: B confirms p in input context K5 (Canonical move) Table 5.10:K 6': B denies p in input context K5 (Canonical move) Table 5.11:K 3": B denies p in input context K2 (Canonical move) Table 5.12:K 7: A asserts \John said that phases were introduced in Chomsky 1995" relative to initial input state K1 Table 5.13:K 8: A asserts \Mary asked if Sam is home" relative to the initial input context K1 Table 5.14:K 9: A asserts \Mary asked if Sam is home" relative to the initial input context K1 Table 5.15:K 10: A asserts \Jane asked me would I visit her" relative to initial input state K1 7 Table 5.16:K 12: A asks \Do you know is Mary coming?" relative to the initial input context K1 Table 5.17:K 13: A says \Marga sagte, Peter ist gl¨ucklich" relative to the initial input context K1 Table 8.1: Total long-distance answers (long-distance + `both' answers) by Question Type x Inversion (%) Table 8.2: Answers to the question: \What region are you from?" Table 8.3: Total long-distance answers by Question Type x Inversion in Belfast speakers (%) Table 8.4: Total long-distance answers by Question Type x Inversion in non-Belfast speakers (%) Table 8.5: Long- and short-distance answers by Matrix wh-word x Inversion in all survey re- spondents (%) Table 8.6: Grammaticality judgements on extractability of arguments from different types of speech report (7-point Likert scale) Table 8.7: Acceptability judgments on Extractability of Arguments from Different Types of Speech Report x Dialect Table 8.8: Mean rating of sentences by Matrix Predicate x Inversion x Question Type x Inversion in all speakers 8 Acknowledgements Before I throw myself into the (copious, copious) thanks, a note for the PhD students who may read this (or prefer reading acknowledgements to the thesis itself).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reference and Sense
    REFERENCE AND SENSE y two distinct ways of talking about the meaning of words y tlkitalking of SENSE=deali ng with relationshippggs inside language y talking of REFERENCE=dealing with reltilations hips bbtetween l. and the world y by means of reference a speaker indicates which things (including persons) are being talked about ege.g. My son is in the beech tree. II identifies persons identifies things y REFERENCE-relationship between the Enggplish expression ‘this p pgage’ and the thing you can hold between your finger and thumb (part of the world) y your left ear is the REFERENT of the phrase ‘your left ear’ while REFERENCE is the relationship between parts of a l. and things outside the l. y The same expression can be used to refer to different things- there are as many potential referents for the phrase ‘your left ear’ as there are pppeople in the world with left ears Many expressions can have VARIABLE REFERENCE y There are cases of expressions which in normal everyday conversation never refer to different things, i.e. which in most everyday situations that one can envisage have CONSTANT REFERENCE. y However, there is very little constancy of reference in l. Almost all of the fixing of reference comes from the context in which expressions are used. y Two different expressions can have the same referent class ica l example: ‘the MiMorning St’Star’ and ‘the Evening Star’ to refer to the planet Venus y SENSE of an expression is its place in a system of semantic relati onshi ps wit h other expressions in the l.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics
    Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics YEUNG, \y,ang -C-hun ...:' . '",~ ... ~ .. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy In Philosophy The Chinese University of Hong Kong January 2010 Abstract of thesis entitled: Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Submitted by YEUNG, Wang Chun for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2009 This ,thesis investigates problems surrounding the lively debate about how Kripke's examples of necessary a posteriori truths and contingent a priori truths should be explained. Two-dimensionalism is a recent development that offers a non-reductive analysis of such truths. The semantic interpretation of two-dimensionalism, proposed by Jackson and Chalmers, has certain 'descriptive' elements, which can be articulated in terms of the following three claims: (a) names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by some associated properties, (b) these properties are known a priori by every competent speaker, and (c) these properties reflect the cognitive significance of sentences containing such terms. In this thesis, I argue against two arguments directed at such 'descriptive' elements, namely, The Argument from Ignorance and Error ('AlE'), and The Argument from Variability ('AV'). I thereby suggest that reference-fixing properties belong to the semantics of names and natural kind terms, and not to their metasemantics. Chapter 1 is a survey of some central notions related to the debate between descriptivism and direct reference theory, e.g. sense, reference, and rigidity. Chapter 2 outlines the two-dimensional approach and introduces the va~ieties of interpretations 11 of the two-dimensional framework.
    [Show full text]
  • John Rogers Searle and His Contribution to Speech Act Theory
    JOHN ROGERS SEARLE AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SPEECH ACT THEORY RANSHING PRATAP RAMDAS Ph. D. Research Scholar Department of English Dr. B.A. M.U. Aurangabad (MS) INDIA Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which studies the meaning communicated through language. Pragmatics studies the process by which native users of a language use native language. Pragmatics studies the meaning in the context sentence is made. Pragmatics is the newer area of language study in linguists. The important development in the pragmatics is the origin of speech act theory. J. L. Austin is the originator of the Speech act theory. According to J. L. Austin all utterances are some type of speech act. People not only produce utterances to convey their feelings but also perform actions in between their speech. Even a simple utterance such as ‘Violets are blue’ might be regarded as a special type of act namely the act of making a statement. This overall approach to language study is known as ‘speech act theory’. INTRODUCTION John Rogers Searle He is born on 31 July 1932. He is an American Philosopher. He is widely noted for his contribution to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, social philosophy. Searle began his early college education at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. He received all his university degrees, B.A., M.A., and D. Phil from Oxford University. He held first position in a faculty. He has five honorary doctorate degrees from four different countries and is an honorary visiting professor. In 2000, he received the Jean Nicod Prize, in 2004 the National Humanities Medal and in 2006, the Mind and Brain Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico
    Living in Silence: the End of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Lecture on Ethics Johanna Schakenraad Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus logico-philosophicus starts as a book on logic and (the limits of) language. In the first years after publication (in 1921) it was primarily read as a work aiming to put an end to nonsensical language and all kinds of metaphysical speculation. For this reason it had a great influence on the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. But for Wittgenstein himself it had another and more important purpose. In 1919 he had sent his manuscript to Ludwig von Ficker, the publisher of the literary journal der Brenner, hoping that Ficker would consider publishing the Tractatus. In the accompanying letter he explains how he wishes his book to be understood. He thinks it is necessary to give an explanation of his book because the content might seem strange to Ficker, but, he writes: In reality, it isn’t strange to you, for the point of the book is ethical. I once wanted to give a few words in the foreword which now actually are not in it, which, however, I’ll write to you now because they might be a key to you: I wanted to write that my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one. For the Ethical is delimited from within, as it were, by my book; and I’m convinced that, strictly speaking, it can ONLY be delimited in this way.
    [Show full text]
  • Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts, Which J.L
    Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutioary Acts Between Modern linguistics and Traditional Arabic Linguistics Hisham Ibrahim Abdulla ABSTRACT The present paper is part of a larger project to investigate the hypothesis that traditional Arab linguists were well acquainted with some of the main ideas and concepts of modern pragmatics. In this paper the researcher tries to find out whether Arab linguists were familiar with one of the major tenets of speech–act theory, namely, the analysis of a speech act (SA) into locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, which J.L. Austin used in his analysis of speech acts. It is a commonplace assumption in the history of modern linguistics that speech-act theory and its key features were Įrst proposed by AusƟn in the middle of the 20th century. The aim of this paper is to question that assumption; therefore, the problem or the question that the researcher undertakes to answer is whether Arab linguists of the past knew speech acts and were able to analyse them before modern linguists and philosophers like Austin , and consequently to see whether these aspects of the theory have a longer history than is assumed in the literature. The first part of the paper gives a survey of the above concepts as they appear in modern linguistic literature in the west . The second part deals with the Arabs' contribution to the same concepts and aspects of the theoryin an attempt to show their familiarity with them centuries before modern linguists. The method the researcher uses to achieve his aim is quoting˺ from traditional books of Arab and Muslim linguists (rhetoricians and jurisprudents ) .
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Ii Framework of Theories
    CHAPTER II FRAMEWORK OF THEORIES In this chapter, the writer describes theories used in this writing. The researcher uses pragmatics approaches as the theory. The theory is necessary since it will be the basic foundation in conducting this research. 2.1 Pragmatics Study There are some definitions by the experts or by linguists about Pragmatics. It is the study of meaning as delivered by a speaker (or a writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader) (Yule:1996). Yule also divides the meaning of pragmatics in several definitions as follows: 2.1.1 Pragmatic is the study of speaker meaning It means that the utterances that are expressed by speaker are more than what is said. It is nothing to do with the structure of the utterances but the speaker intended meaning which is conveyed through their utterances. The hearer has to find it in order to be communicative. 2.1.2 Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than it is said In this case, hearers have to investigate the invisible meaning that speakers try to convey. The hearer has to be capable to see and understand the invisible meaning in order to be more communicative. 2.1.3 Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning Speakers have to consider what they want to say regarding on with whom they are talking with, where, when and the situation. It is because the context influences the interpretation of the hearer. The hearer has to have share knowledge in order to be more communicative. 2.1.4 Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance It has to be different in which you speak to your peers than your parents.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Reference 1. the Phenomenon Of
    1 Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of "aboutness", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, "Ouch!" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutgers Semantics Workshop
    THE DETERMINATION OF CONTENT Zoltán Gendler Szabó Yale University Abstract: I identify a notion of compositionality at the intersection of the different notions philosophers, linguists, and psychologists are concerned with. The notion is compositionality of expression content: the idea that the content of a complex expression in a context of its utterance is determined by its syntactic structure and the contents of its constituents in the contexts of their respective utterances. Traditional arguments from productivity and systematicity cannot establish that the contents of linguistic expressions are compositionally determined in this sense. I present a novel argument for this thesis based on plausible premises about literal use and a detailed defense of the compositionality of speech-act content. Jerry Fodor writes: “So non-negotiable is compositionality that I’m not even going to tell you what it is.”1 He has a point. Some sort of compositionality is beyond dispute: there must be a recursive mechanism underlying linguistic competence. At the same time, it has proven exceedingly difficult to state the principle precisely without falling into triviality or falsehood. Despite this, I think we should keep trying. The need for clarity is underlined by the fact that in the paper which contains the quote above, Fodor actually argues against the compositionality of natural language. He does so in order to argue for the compositionality of human thought. He reasons as follows: either thought or language must be compositional, and if language isn’t thought must be. This, in turn is supposed to show that thought is explanatorily prior to language: for whichever of the two is compositional must be what is meaningful in the first place.
    [Show full text]
  • 76 an Analysis of Locutionary and Illocutionary Act Of
    AN ANALYSIS OF LOCUTIONARY AND ILLOCUTIONARY ACT OF REPRESENTATIVE UTTERANCES USED IN DIGITAL STORYTELLING: I’M AN ANIMAL SERIES BY BROWN BAG FILMS Fristi Arfiawati [email protected] Rossantiana Agus Ramdani [email protected] ABSTRACT The research entitled An Analysis of Locutionary and Illocutionary Act of Representative Utterances Used in Digital Storytelling: I’m an Animal Series by Brown Bag Films aims to analyze the locutionary and Illocutionary act based on Austin’s theory and Searle’s theory in digital storytelling videos I’m an Animal series directed by Brown Bag Films. The research used descriptive qualitative method and the data were taken in the form of utterances spoken by the animals in digital storytelling videos, transcribed into the written form and then analyzed by using the theory of speech acts. The research focus on a representatives utterances as the animals mainly talk about their life. The findings showed that there were several locutionary and Illocutionary act of representative utterances in the Digital Storytelling video of I’m an Animal Series by Brown Bag Film. Key words: Speech Acts, Utterance, Locutionary Act, Illocutionary Act, Representatives 1. INTRODUCTION Language influences human life as the bridge to communicate within society or other people. Nowadays, using language for communication is necessary when the speaker and the hearer understand what they are talking about. The communicative act or called as the utterances of the speaker commonly represent verbal communication. It means that people do not only produce utterance which is focused on grammatical structure and every word but also the way they perform the utterance.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Speech Act? 1 2
    WHAT IS A SPEECH ACT? 1 2 What is a Speech Act? John Searle I. Introduction n a typical speech situation involving a speaker, a hearer, and an utterance by the speaker, there are many kinds of acts associated with Ithe speaker’s utterance. The speaker will characteristically have moved his jaw and tongue and made noises. In addition, he will characteristically have performed some acts within the class which includes informing or irritating or boring his hearers; he will further characteristically have performed acts within the class which includes referring to Kennedy or Khrushchev or the North Pole; and he will also have performed acts within the class which includes making statements, asking questions, issuing commands, giving reports, greeting, and warning. The members of this last class are what Austin1 called illocutionary acts and it is with this class that I shall be concerned in this paper, so the paper might have been called ‘What is an Illocutionary Act?’ I do not attempt to defi ne the expression ‘illocutionary act’, although if my analysis of a particular illocutionary act succeeds it may provide the basis for a defi nition. Some of the English verbs and verb phrases associated with illocutionary acts are: state, assert, describe, warn, remark, comment, command, order, request, criticize, apologize, censure, approve, welcome, promise, express approval, and express regret. Austin claimed that there were over a thousand such expressions in English. By way of introduction, perhaps I can say why I think it is of interest and importance in the philosophy of language to study speech acts, or, as they are sometimes called, language acts or linguistic acts.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference
    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambiguous Persuasion∗
    Ambiguous Persuasion∗ Dorian Beauchêney Jian Liz Ming Li§ May 7, 2018 Abstract We study a persuasion game à la Kamenica and Gentzkow (2011) where players are ambiguity averse with maxmin expected utility (Gilboa and Schmeidler, 1989). With no prior ambiguity, a Sender may choose to use ambiguous communication devices. Our main result characterizes the value of optimal ambiguous persuasion, which is of- ten higher than what is feasible under Bayesian persuasion. We characterize posteriors that are potentially plausible when they are generated by ambiguous devices. One way to construct an optimal ambiguous communication device is by using synonyms, messages that lead to the same posteriors, in which Sender can hedge himself against ambiguity while inducing actions from Receiver that would not be possible under stan- dard Bayesian persuasion. We also show that the use of synonyms are a necessary property of optimal and beneficial ambiguous persuasion. We consider two applica- tions, including the well-known uniform-quadratic example. Our analysis provides a justification for how ambiguity may emerge endogenously in persuasion. ∗We are grateful to Pierre Fleckinger, Françoise Forges, Sidartha Gordon, Yingni Guo, Sean Horan, Rafael Hortala-Vallve, Maxim Ivanov, Frédéric Koessler, Marie Laclau, Laura Lasio, Elliot Lipnowski, Sujoy Mukerji, Peter Norman, Eduardo Perez-Richet, Ludovic Renou, Marciano Siniscalchi, Joel Sobel, Jean-Marc Tallon, Vassili Vergopoulos, and two anonymous referees for their very helpful comments. We also thank audiences at Stony Brook Game Theory Conference 2016, Midwest Theory conference 2016, 2017, Midwest Political Science Association Conference 2017, Canadian Economic Theory Conference 2017, Asian Summer Meeting of Econometric Society 2017, RES-York Symposium on Game Theory 2017, Carleton University, McMaster University, McGill University, National University of Singapore, Université de Montreal, and Université Laval for valuable inputs.
    [Show full text]