|
Degrees of Validity and the Logical Paradoxes| old_uid | 12398 |
|---|
| title | Degrees of Validity and the Logical Paradoxes |
|---|
| start_date | 2013/04/25 |
|---|
| schedule | 14h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| location_info | Grande Salle |
|---|
| summary | The dialogical approach to meaning is based on the idea that expressions get their meaning through the way they are used in certain kinds of dialogue games between a Proponent and an Opponent. It has been applied successfully to a variety of formal languages of interest in logic. Thus, the dialogical framework is a promising alternative candidate for a general theory of meaning which meets Ginzburg's aims. However, very little has been done when it comes to applying this framework to natural languages. Indeed a lot remains to be done in order to develop a general dialogical theory of meaning. Our aim here is to make a first incursion in this field. For this purpose we introduce what we call play-objects and design dialogical games for an explicit language in which these objects occur.
The games we describe are clearly inspired by CTT. In particular, they rely on some principles on which Martin-Löf's formalism is grounded such as the “propositions as sets” principle, the “no entity without a type” principle, etc. Enriching standard dialogues in accordance with these ideas is a necessary step in order to establish connections between the dialogical approach and CTT. However it would be a mistake to conclude that we obtain nothing more than a dialogical re-writing of CTT. Indeed, there is an important difference between dialogical play-objects and CTT's proof-objects, and this difference cannot easily be overcome. This is not surprising because we introduce play-objects so that interaction can be explicitly accounted for within dialogue games, while interactive aspects are clearly not covered by CTT's proof-objects. Summing up: introducing play-objects is a necessary step for a dialogical approach to CTT and in order to provide a theory of meaning which not only is based on interactive aspects but also explicitly accounts for interaction. But it is not enough to give a detailed account of the connections between dialogues and CTT. These connections are likely to be found when we move from dialogues to strategies. |
|---|
| responsibles | <not specified> |
|---|
| |
|