Steel, Samuel William Dyne

2013-06-26T12:34:41Z

2013-06-26T12:34:41Z

1984

A remark fits into a discourse if it can be interpreted as a plan-advancing act given the world around the speakers. their intentions. and the prior discourse. Teleological questions about discourse such as "Why did X make this utterance here? " must have answers such as "Because X wanted to do so-and-so". When there is no surh answer. the discourse will be incomprehensible. The proper sort of explanation to give is to talk about the speaker's plans and the alterations he intends in his interlocutor's plans. To do this one must have an account of what a plan is. how it can be changed by changes in its maker's beliefs and values. how utterances can make such changes. and when such changes count as benefits for the speaker. Such an account is offered. The interlocutors must have recursive beliefs (beliefs about each others' beliefs). But often a special simple case of recursive belief can be used. Then recursive belief can be factored out of the problem of explaining how utterances change plans. A proof of sufficient condition for this special case to arise is given. Indirect communication can occur if a speaker forces his hearer to change the plans the hearer supposes the speaker to have. This happens because being known to have a plan entails being known to have certain beliefs. Some discourse events are constituted bV changes that occur to the plans of Speakers in the discourse as a result of what is said. Examples are given. Some process accounts of the recognition of utterances as goal-directed attempts to change plans are considered.

355977

http://hdl.handle.net/1842/6726

eng

University of Edinburgh

Linguistics

Computer

software

Discourse as planned action

PhD Doctor of Philosophy