Principes de pragmatique formelle du discours

Pourrait-on enrichir la théorie des actes de langage pour traiter du discours? Wittgenstein et Searle ont signalé des difficultés. Beaucoup de discours n’ont pas de but conversationnel, leur arrière-plan est indéfiniment ouvert, ils contiennent des énonciations dépourvues de pertinence et de félicité, et ainsi de suite. À mes yeux, l’objectif principal de la pragmatique du discours est d’analyser la structure et la dynamique des jeux de langage à but conversationnel. Pareils jeux de langage sont indispensables à tout genre de discours. La logique peut analyser leurs conditions de félicité car leur poursuite obéit à des règles constitutives. Beaucoup d’énonciations ne sont pas littérales ou sérieuses. Les unités de la conversation sont les actes illocutoires tentés, qu’ils soient littéraux, sérieux ou non. Comme Montague, je préconise l’usage de formalismes logiques en pragmatique. J’expliquerai comment il convient de réviser et développer les logiques intensionnelle et illocutoire, la logique des attitudes et de l’action afin de modéliser notre capacité de dialoguer. Je comparerai mon approche à d’autres (Austin, Belnap, Grice, Montague, Searle, Sperber et Wilson, Kamp, Wittgenstein) sur le plan de la méthodologie, des hypothèses et des enjeux.Could we enrich speech-act theory to deal with discourse? Wittgenstein and Searle pointed out difficulties. Most dialogues lack a conversational purpose, their background is indefinitely open, they contain irrelevant and infelicitous utterances, etc. In my view, the primary aim of discourse pragmatics is to analyze the structure and dynamics of language-games whose type is provided with an internal conversational goal. Such games are indispensable to any kind of discourse. Logic can analyze their felicity-conditions because they are conducted according to systems of constitutive rules. Speakers often speak non-literally or non-seriously. The units of conversation are attempted illocutions whether literal, serious or not. I will show how to construct speaker-meaning from sentence-meaning, conversational background and maxims. Like Montague, I believe that we need the resources of formalisms (proof-, model- and game-theories) and of logic in pragmatics. I will explain how to further develop intensional and illocutionary logics, the logic of attitudes and of action in order to characterize our ability to converse. I will compare my approach to others (Austin, Belnap, Grice, Montague, Searle, Sperber and Wilson, Kamp, Wittgenstein) as regards hypotheses, methodology and issues

ON THE INTENTIONALITY AND IMPERFECT BUT MINIMAL RATIONALITY OF HUMAN SPEAKERS

I will criticize the current logical analysis of attitudes due to J. Hintikka (1971) according to which human agents are either perfectly rational or completely irrational. I will present the principles of a general logic of first level attitudes and actions that accounts for our intentionality and imperfect but minimal rationality. First level attitudes and actions are attitudes and actions of individual agents at a single moment of time. In my approach psychological modes of propositional attitudes have other components than their basic Cartesian category of cognition and volition. I will formulate a recursive definition of the set of all psychological modes. I will also analyze the nature of complex first level attitudes such as conditional attitudes and sums and denegations of attitudes which are irreducible to propositional attitudes. My primary purpose here will be first to explicate inductively conditions of possession and of satisfaction of all first level attitudes and to integrate my logic of attitudes within a general theory of first level actions explicating the primacy of intentional actions, their conditions of success and fundamental laws of action generation. For that purpose I will use a non classical predicative propositional logic and consider subjective as well as objective possibilities. Agents of voluntary actions and illocutionary acts have intentions and other first level attitudes. I will explain why logically equivalent propositions are not the content of the same attitudes and intentional actions and why human agents are neither logically omniscient nor perfectly rational but always remain minimally rational in the exercise of thought and the use of language. For more information see my next book Speech Acts in Dialogue

Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”

Formal semantics for propositional attitudes

Contemporary logic is confined to a few paradigmatic attitudes such as belief, knowledge, desire and intention. My purpose is to present a general model-theoretical semantics of propositional attitudes of any cognitive or volitive mode. In my view, one can recursively define the set of all psychological modes of attitudes. As Descartes anticipated, the two primitive modes are those of belief and desire. Complex modes are obtained by adding to primitive modes special cognitive and volitive ways or special propositional content or preparatory conditions. According to standard logic of attitudes (Hintikka), human agents are either perfectly rational or totally irrational. I will proceed to a finer analysis of propositional attitudes that accounts for our imperfect but minimal rationality. For that purpose I will use a non standard predicative logic according to which propositions with the same truth conditions can have different cognitive values and I will explicate subjective in addition to objective possibilities. Next I will enumerate valid laws of my general logic of propositional attitudes. At the end I will state principles according to which minimally rational agents dynamically revise attitudes of any mode

Donald Davidson and Jaakko Hintikka, Words and Objections. Essays on the Work of W.V. Quine

Vanderveken Daniel. Donald Davidson and Jaakko Hintikka, Words and Objections. Essays on the Work of W.V. Quine. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Quatrième série, tome 72, n°15, 1974. pp. 588-591