<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-2152">
  <Title>A Formal Computational Semantics and Pragmatics of Speech Acts*</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="744" end_page="744" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6. Representative Deelaratives: Dr 4~B(P)
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The represe~ltative declarative has a direction of fit of word-to-world $ ( since the speaker bases his declaration on the recognition of some fact p ), and a self-realizing directions of fit ~ (like declarations). There is a psychological state in the sincerity condition that the speaker must believe B the proposition expressed.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Example: The umpire declaring, You i'e out or the judge, I find you guilty as charged.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 3. Critique of Searle's Notion of Force Note that the actual classes of illocutionary acts that Searle distinguishes correspond exactly to the values of the illocutionary point dimension, it turns out that there is a one to one correspondence between the illocutionary point and the type of speech act. it should be evident that the point of the ~Lpeech act is just another name for the speech act type a~d does not add any more distinguishing inibrmation for the individuation of that type from the others. Hence, one can conlude that it is the information in the remaining three dimensions ( the direction of fit, pyschological state and propositional content) that really distinguish the speech act types considered by Searle.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> One is still left with the nagging question: But, what is the force of an utterance? Well, if we have an utterance u == F(p) ,and, if u is a directive, then u = ! I&amp;quot; W(H does A)~ where the force F = I~'W and p = HdoesA. But, if we are right about the irrelevance of the illocutionary point ! to t~e classification, then the force of a directive becomes F : ~W and the utterance n becomes u = F(p) :~ ~' W(H does A).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> However, one can plausibly argue that the sincerity condition W, that the speaker want the action indicated by the propositional content, is really not part of the force of the utterance. For the utterance is understood by the hearer whether the speaker wants the action or not. For example, it may well be that a general is forced to order his troops to war, after a declaration of war by the president. The general's command still has its meaning and effect irrespective of his personal wants. And, indeed, a little reflection should convince the reader that the want W does not contribute to the differentiation of the typology.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> So now we have reduced the force of a directive to a single parameter value the direction of fit ~ .</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> If we are so impertinent as to ask What is the direction of fit?, we will find no ready answer that is not circular. The direction of fit of a directive is &amp;quot;world-towords&amp;quot; ~. In other words, the force of a directive is to change the world using words. Or, better, to influence an agent to change the world by conununicating a directive to that agent. In effect, in spite of all the symbols, the force remains essentially an unanalyzed notion. Little more is said than that the force of a directive is differenct from the force of an assertion. Nothing new there. Directives are used to change the world. Assertions are used to describe the world. True, but it is not enlightening. Hence, we have shown some of the dimensions to be redundant, vague and of questionable computational usefulness. We have also shown that the attempt to reduce the point feature to the remaining features leads to a dead end.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> At the heart of these problems lies a more devastating pathology: We have seen that the point of the speech act is redundant for Searle's classification of speech acts. However, the point of the speech act is that part of the force that gives the central purpose of the act. Searle and Vanderveken state that the point of a speech act is a clear enough concept to be used as a primitive notion in the formal theory. '~lYhe notion of illocutionary point is the fundamental undefined primitive notion of illocutionary logic.&amp;quot; \[p.fl7, Searle and Vanderveken 85\] Yet a few lines later they say the analysis of the point of speech acts requires a theory of mental states, specifically, a theory of intentionality which they say is beyond the scope of the book. Thus, the point of a speech act is a very complicated notion that requires a formal theory of psychology before that notion can be made formally rigorous. They also state that the point of a speech act is the most important component of the force \[p.14, Searle and Vanderveken 85\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Since the force of a speech act is the most important element that differentiates speech act theory from traditional referential semantics, the point of the speech act is the central theoretical notion in the foundations of the theory of speech acts. Yet it is the point of the speech act that is left unanalyzed in Searle's formal account.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> To sum up, the features constituting the notion of force are not motivated by any coherent theory of the meaning of speech acts. As Searle and Vanderveken admit, they have no semantics for the two most central features in the definition of force, namely, the point and direction of fit of the speech act. Instead, they leave these notions primitive.and unanalyzed. That, however, amounts to leaving the notion of force an unanalyzed concept. As Searle himself states, a proper theory of force -requires a theory of intention. We outline such a theory of intention in this paper and use it to formally define the force of a speech act. 745</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="744" end_page="744" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. Speech Acts in Communication
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The necessity of social cooperation gives birth to communication. The reason that utterances have the effect of actions is because they influence the cognitive state of the conversants. It is the harmony of the cognitive states of agents that makes possible cooperative social action and forms the basis of society \[Werner 88 a, b\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> On our view the meaning of the speech act is best understood if we understand how the speech act is meant to influence the cognitive states of the conversants in the context of a social activity. The force of a speech act lies in its unique distribution of effect on the cognitive substates of the social agents.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> One objection to our view may be that the theory of how a speech act effects the hearer is the study of perl0cutionary effect. The perlocutionary effect is subject to the idiosyncrasies of individual performance and understanding and, therefore, cannot be the meaning of the speech act. We think differently. One must make a distinction, analoguous to Chomky's for syntax, between the ideal competence of the understanding subject (i.e., the ability of the subject to understand the speech act) and the actual cognitive performance. The meaning of a speech act is described by how it is to effect the ideal cognitive state of the conversants, given that the message is accepted. (see Perrault \[87\] for a similar view)</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="744" end_page="746" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5. Critique of Habermas
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Habermas \[81\] suggests that to get a theory of meaning for all sentences of a natural language, we have to generalize truth conditions to general satisfaction conditions. This would imply that assertions are given truth conditions, moral assertions being right or wrong are given rightness conditions and~intention statements being sincere or not are given sincerity conditions. Since comands are legitimate or not they would, presumably, be given legitimacy conditions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Habermas' hypothesis is based on a confusion between presuppositions (rightness, sincerity, legitimacy), truth conditions, and a theory of meaning. The general problem is that the rightness, sincerity and legitimacy conditions are not sufficient to specify and differentiate the meaning of one sentence from another. The general satisfaction conditions are inadequate for meeting the requirements of a semantic theory. Consider the example, I will go to the market tomorrow. Here the intention expressed may or may not be sincere. Even if it is sincere, this sincerity in itself does not distinguish it from I am going to go fly a kite. The content and point of the sentence is missed. The sincerety condition is independent of the meaning of the sentence. It says nothing of the semantic theory that specifies the semantic content and pragmantic point.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> I will VP, where VP is some verb phrase describing some action, is sincere if the speaker's intentions SA are modified to be in accord with the meaning of the sentence. You should not have done X is right if the act X is not allowed by the prevailing norms. Here again the rightness by itself is not enough to determine the meaning of the normative claim. The comand Attack! is legitimate or not depending on if the requisite roles and authority relations exist and are accepted by all parties concerned.  But this legitimation condition does not distinguish Attack! from Retreat/nor from any other comand. The legitimation claim that is raised and presupposed by giving a comand does not specify the meaning of the comand itself.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> There is a false analogy drawn between the general satisfaction conditions and truth conditions. While truth conditions do differentiate assertive sentences that have distinct meanings, a truth conditional semantics does not give the meaning of a sentence explicitly. They do not construct a semantical object that is meant to be the sentence's meaning. Classical non-situational semantics of basic sentences did not differentiate the meanings of sentences except indirectly through differences in the content and form of the truth conditions. However, in situation semantics, where basic sentences refer to situations, we can refer to and differentiate sentence meanings directly: And that is point! The meaning of the basic sentence is already given by the deeper situation semantics. The truth conditions are defined by presupposing the deep meaning of the sentence is already given. So too for all the generalized satisfaction conditions. The deep semantics and the pragmatic interpretation of the sentence in question is presupposed in the specification/defintion of the satisfaction conditions. A crucially important conclusion follows from the above argument: It is that conditions of use of a sentence in the sense of Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Cohen and Perrault and Habermas, are only indirectly related to the meaning of an utterance. Meaning is not identical with the conditions of use of the sentence. It is not identical to the preconditions of the speech action. Instead, the conditions of use of a sentence presuppose the situational and pragmatic meaning of the sentence.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="746" end_page="746" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
6. Psychology and Force
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Bring me a brick/and You brought me a brick may both refer to the same action. While their semantic reference is the same, their force is clearly distinct. The example shows that the meaning of a sentence cannot be identified with its reference. For in the example both sentences have the same reference, namely, the action of bringing the brick. The difference in meaning lies in the difference in the force, and, as we will see below, in the difference in their pragmatic interpretation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> To explain this difference in force we will give a pragmatic interpretation to the sentence. A eomand steers action by affecting the intentions of the hearer. Its point is to affect those intentions. The assertion, on the other hand, affects the information state of the hearer and its point is to give information. This difference of force is not explainable by a purely referential theory, It requires explicit or implicit reference to mental states. Thus, if we take situation semantics to be the claim that the meaning of a sentence is the external situation it refers to, then situation semantics can give no explanation of force. If it tries to, it must bring in mental states. Thereby, it is no longer a purely referential theory. However, as we will see situation semantics serves as a foundation for understanding and defining the propositional content of speech acts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A proper theory of speech act force requires a formal ~heory of psyehology~ Such a theory of psychology must bc tbrmal because its variables, mental states, will be used \[n the ibl~ml analysis of the point. Furthermore, a formal psychology should sh6w the theoretical relationships between the mental states. Thus these mental states must have a su:fficient complexity to account for these inb~rrelatio~as and to explain the linguistic phenomena.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Such a theory should provide the conceptual foundations ~aeeded for the central and most important concept in ;~peech act f;heory, in addition, it must account for the i'elationship between linguistic communication and social cooperation, To get a theory of meaning for speech acts we thus will need a theory of the intentional, informational, evaluative, and more generally, the cognitive states of the convcrsants. For a more detailed account of the general theory ofeommunication see Wcrner188a\].</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="8" start_page="746" end_page="746" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
7. Cognitive States
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Let TP be the set of time periods t where time instants ar~ordered by a relation &lt;. Let Hist(Q) be the setofpossible partial histories ttt up to time t. Let Q be the set ofalt complete histories or worlds H. Worlds are series of complete situations. (See Barwise and Perry \[83\].) A situation s is realized in H at t if s is contained in H and the domaine ofs is time period t. STRAT is the set of all possible strategies, a * is the set of possible histories consi,~tent ~vith the strategy n The cognitive or representational state R of a conversational participanL cp is described by three components R -= &lt;I, S, V&gt; . ~ is the information state of the cp. I is ibrmalized as a set of possible partial histories. S is the intentim~a~ state of the cp. S is a set of possible strategies t.hat gaide the actions of the cp. V is the evaluative state of the cp. Y represents the cp's evaluation and focus on situations. The representational state RA may include the agent A's representation of B's representation, RBA. It may also include the agent A's representation of B's representation of A's representation, Rn^^. Thus we can represent arbitrary levels of nesting of representations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Let INF, INT, and EVAL be the set of all possible informati.n, intentional, and evaluative states, ~espectively. Let the representational capacity , Rep, be the set of all possible representational states of a cp.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> For the theoretical foundations and some of the principles interrelating intention, information and ability see Werner \[88c\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 8. Representational Semantics A theory of the meaning of speech acts is a theory of how the representations of the cp are updated by the co~t~nunicative process. The propositional content of the speech act ~s given by a situation semantics in the style of l~arwise and Perry \[83\]. We call the theory of how representational or cognitive states are transformed by messages the pragmatics or representational ~emantics. Given a language L we define a pragmatic operator Prag, where for each sentence a in L, Prag(a) is a function from Rep into Rep . Thus Prag takes a given sttb~'epresentational state such as I in R and transtblzns itinte a new substate I' = Prag(a)(I).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="9" start_page="746" end_page="748" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
9. Communication
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="746" end_page="746" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
9.1 Syntax
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> To illustrate how the representational semantics works we develop the pragmatic interpretation for a small temporal propositional language fragment we will call Lpc The language Lpt will include logical and temporal connectives: A (=and), V (--- or), -1 (=not), AC/ (= and then), while (= while). From atomic formulas p ,q, we build up complex formulas a A ~, a V ~, -7 a, a A ~ i~, and u while ~ in the usual way.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="746" end_page="746" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
9.2 Pragmatic Interpretation of Assertions
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> For any formula a in L , Prag(a) : Rep ~ Rep is a function that distributes over the representational state</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> assume Holds( a, H, t) is defined by induction in the usual way where for atomic formulas Holds( a, H, t) if the situation referred to by a is realized in H at t.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Prag must additionally satisfy other conditions : For</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> formulas a and ~.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> Prag acts on information states as follows:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> times to, t' e TimePeriods, TP, where Holds( a, H, to) and Holds( ~, H, t') and to &lt; t'} Prag (a while ~)(I) =- {Ht : Ht~ I and for all to, t' e TP, if to contains t' then if Holds( \[~, H, t') then Holds( a, H, to)} For example, the pragmatic interpretation of the sentence a = 'Jon opened the door' is arrived at as follows: n refers to the event of Jon opening the door. Prag(a) is an * operator on the hearer's information state I such that Prag(a)I is the reduction of the set I to those histories where the event referred to by n occurred. The hearer A knows u if a holds in all the worlds in I. Thus, A comes to know that a as a result of receiving and interpreting the message a.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="746" end_page="748" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
9.3 l'ragmatic Interpretation of Directives
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Prag acts on the intentional substates as follows:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> there exist times to, t' ~ TP where Holds( u, H, to) and Holds( 13, H, t') and to &lt; t'} Prag (o while 13)(S) = { n : for all H e n*, exists t, t' e TP such that Holds( a, H, t) and Holds( a, H, t') and t' contains t}.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  For example, if a: = 'Open the door' , a refers to the situation of the addressee A opening the door. Prag(a) operates on A's intentional state SA such that A opens the * door. Prag does this by removing all those possible plans of A that do not force a. Viewed constructively, a plan is incrementally built up by the Prag algorithm. And those are the plans n that have some world H e n * where the situation referred to by a is not realized in H. The result is that the agent performs the directive in parallel to other goals he may have. Again, we are talking about the ideal pragmatic competence.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> Note that Prag describes the pragmatic competence of an ideal speaker and not the actual performance. He may for various reasons not accept the message. But for him to understand the conventional meaning of the assertion or directive, the conversational participant must know what the effect of the message is supposed to be if he were to accept it, Thus, a Participant will not just have an actual informational and intentional state I and S but also hypothetical representational states HI and HS that are used to compute the pragmatic effect of a given message. If the participant then accepts the message , HI or HS will become a part of the actual representational state R = (I, S, V).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> 10. Pragmatic Operators The interpretation of utterances is actually more complicated. For a given formula a are associated several operators that give different kinds of information. Let fa = Prag( a ) the interpretation of a. To describe the act - of saying a we introduce another operator, acts is the operator giving the infomation that a was just said. ~a is the time operator that shifts time according to how long it took to say u . Here we assume for simplicity that the act of uttering a takes one unit of time. We could of Course relativize the time operator to a . Note, ~a~a ~ ~a Combining operators, acta~a is then the act of uttering a * Note, acta~a = ~aactQ. f, acta~a is the act of uttering and interpreting a.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> We have several cases possible when A asserts the informative a to the audience B.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7">  1. If B hears, understands and accepts a then IB =I, f, acta~aIB .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> 2. If B hears, but does not understand or accept a, then IB C/ acta~aIB .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> Note, if a is a directive then fa acts on SB and not on Ill. Yet it is known what was said. So here too, IB ~ acta~aIB .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> 3. If B hears something was said, but does not know what was said, then IB C/ ~aIB * 4. More odd is the case where B does not hear a  but gets the information of what was said subliminally and knows time passed. Then Ill ~ fQ~aIll .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> The full interpretation of a for the audience B depends on its force. Let Rll * =(IB, SB, VB). Given that the message is accepted, some the cases are as follows:  1. Assertions: (Ill, SB, VB) ~ (faacta~aIB, SB, VB) 2. Comands: (Ill,SB, VB) ~ (actaxaIB, faSB, VB)  3. Statements of Intention: (IB, SB, VB) ~ (acta~aIB, faSB A, VB) 4. Statements of Value: (IB, SB, VB) C/ (acta~aIB, SB, faVB ^)  Below we will simplify matters by usually suppressing the action operator acts as well as the time operator ~a where the above cases indicate how the a more complete description would look like. Note too, that the discourse situation d can be viewed as yet another operator acting on the information state ICp of the coversational participants cp = A, B. Since there are points of view, it is clear that the operator d is also a function of the conversational participant and more generally of the role of the cp. Similarly, as we will see, the pargmatic operator is also a function of the role of the cp in question.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> 11. Speech Act Theory We now give a semantic, pragmatic description of some of the speech acts in Searle's taxonomy. First some needed definitions. Given our formal pragmatics Prag for an utterance &lt; s, a, h &gt;, where s is the speaker, a is the sentence expressed and h is the hearer in the discourse situation d, let the speaker s have representational state Rs = (Is , Ss , Vs ) and the hearer h have representational state Rh = (Ih, Sh , Vh ). The different kinds of speech acts can be differentiated by how they effect the cognitive state of the conversants. Specifically, the force of a speech act is the set of subrepresentations in R that are to be transformed by the speech act. An intentional state S forces a goal g, in symbols, SnC/ giffforall n e S, n forcesg, i.e.,ifffor all H ~ n*, g is realized in H. By definition the composite S + S' of two intentional states S, S' together force a goal g, in symbols, S + S' I1~ g ifffor all n e S, nO e S', and for all H ~ n* Cl no*, g is realized in H. Below we will use the shorthand notation of o1 for Prag(a)I = fa\[ *  1. Assertives: Example: Billopened the door.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> 1.1. Ih a~ OIh 1.2. Is h a ~ OIs h 1.3. Is Ir~ a  Remark: Ih transforms to oI h * Assertives effect the informational state of the hearer. They also effect the hearer's representation of the speaker's beliefs* The sincerity condition that the speaker believe what he asserts is expressed by Is rlC/ a .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14">  2. Directives: Example: Open the door/ 2.1. Sh a~ aSh 2.2. Ss h a~ ass h 2.3 Icp ~ acta~aIcp Remark: The comand updates the hearer's intentions to aS h where h does the action a. aS sh describes the speaker's representation of the heater's new intentions. 3. Commissives: Example: I will open the door.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> 3.1. Ss a~ ass 3*2* Sh s a~ aSh s  Remark: The speaker commits himself to following those strategies that insure the propositional content of a , i.e., all the worlds in each .* realize the action referred to by a. aS h s represents the hearer's resulting representation of the speaker's modified intentions.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>