We present an overview and comparison of different game-theoretic approaches to Gricean pragmatics, including games of partial information, optimal answer models, error models, iterated best response models, and rational speech act models. We address phenomena of disambiguation, scalar implicature, and relevance implicature.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Asher N, Sher I, Williams M. 2002. Game theoretic foundations for Gricean constraints. Proceedings of the 2001 Amsterdam Colloquium on Formal Semantics R van Rooy, M Stokhof 31–37 Amsterdam: Inst. Log. Lang. Comput. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bacharach M. 2006. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  3. Benz A. 2006. Utility and relevance of answers. See Benz et al. 2006a 195–214
  4. Benz A. 2007. On relevance scale approaches. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 E Puig-Waldmüller 91–105 Barcelona: Univ. Pompeu Fabra [Google Scholar]
  5. Benz A. 2009. Implicatures of irrelevant answers and the principle of optimal completion. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5422 Proceedings of the 7th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation. Revised Selected Papers P Bosch, D Gabelaia, J Lang 95–109 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  6. Benz A. 2011. How to set up normal optimal answer models. See Benz et al. 2011 14–39
  7. Benz A. 2012a. Errors in pragmatics. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 21:97–116 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benz A. 2012b. Implicatures of complex sentences in error models. Practical Theories and Empirical Practice A Schalley 273–306 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  9. Benz A, Ebert C, Jäger G, van Rooij R. 2011. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 6207 Language, Games, and Evolution. Trends in Current Research on Language and Game Theory Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  10. Benz A, Jäger G, van Rooij R. 2006a. Game Theory and Pragmatics Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  11. Benz A, Jäger G, van Rooij R. 2006b. An introduction to game theory for linguists. See Benz et al. 2006a 1–82
  12. Benz A, Mattausch J. 2011. Linguistics Today 180 Bidirectional Optimality Theory Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  13. Benz A, van Rooij R. 2007. Optimal assertions and what they implicate: a uniform game theoretic approach. Topoi Int. Rev. Philos. 27:63–78 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bergen L, Levy R, Goodman ND. 2016. Pragmatic reasoning through semantic inference. Semant. Pragmat. 9:1–83 [Google Scholar]
  15. Blutner R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. J. Semant. 17:189–216 [Google Scholar]
  16. Blutner R. 2004. Pragmatics and the lexicon. The Handbook of Pragmatics L Horn, G Ward 488–514 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  17. Camerer CF. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Chierchia G. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and Beyond A Belletti 39–103 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark R. 2012. Meaningful Games: Exploring Language with Game Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark R, Parikh P. 2007. Game theory and discourse anaphora. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 16:265–82 [Google Scholar]
  21. Degen J, Franke M. 2012. Optimal reasoning about referential expressions. Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue S Brown-Schmidt, J Ginzburg, S Larsson 2–11 Paris: Univ. Paris-Diderot [Google Scholar]
  22. Degen J, Goodman ND. 2014. Lost your marbles? The puzzle of dependent measures in experimental pragmatics. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, P Bello, M Guarini, M McShane, B Scassellati 397–402 Cambridge, MA: Cogn. Sci. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  23. Degen J, Tessler MH, Goodman ND. 2015. Wonky worlds: Listeners revise world knowledge when utterances are odd. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society DC Noelle, R Dale, AS Warlaumont, J Yoshimi, T Matlock et al.548–53 Cambridge, MA: Cogn. Sci. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  24. Dekker P, van Rooij R. 2000. Bi-directional optimality theory: an application of game theory. J. Semant. 17:217–42 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dixit AK, Skeath S, Reiley DH. 2009. Games of Strategy New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
  26. Fox D. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics U Sauerland, P Stateva 71–120 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Mcmillan [Google Scholar]
  27. Frank MC, Goodman ND. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336:998 [Google Scholar]
  28. Franke M. 2009. Signal to act: game theory in pragmatics PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, Neth. [Google Scholar]
  29. Franke M. 2011. Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation. Semant. Pragmat. 4:1–82 [Google Scholar]
  30. Franke M. 2017. Game theory in pragmatics: evolution, rationality, and reasoning. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.202 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Franke M, Jäger G. 2014. Pragmatic back–and–forth reasoning. Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures SP Reda 170–200 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  32. Fudenberg D, Tirole J. 1991. Game Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Goodman ND, Stuhlmüller A. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: modeling language understanding as social cognition. Top. Cogn. Sci. 5:173–84 [Google Scholar]
  34. Grice HP. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics P Cole, JL Morgan 341–58 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  35. Harsanyi JC. 1968. Games of incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players. Part II. Manag. Sci. 14:320–34 [Google Scholar]
  36. Horn LR. 1989. A Natural History of Negation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Jäger G. 2007. Game dynamics connects semantics and pragmatics. Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning AVJ Pietarinen 89–102 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  38. Jäger G. 2011. Game-theoretical pragmatics. Handbook of Logic and Language J van Benthem, A ter Meulen 467–91 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  39. Jäger G, Ebert C. 2009. Pragmatic rationalizability. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 A Riester, T Solstad 1–15 Stuttgart, Ger.: Univ. Stuttgart [Google Scholar]
  40. Lassiter D, Goodman ND. 2014. Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives. Proceedings of the 23rd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 23) T Snider 587–610 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  41. Levinson SC. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Lewis D. 1969. Convention Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Mayol L. 2006. On pronouns in Catalan and game theory. Proceedings of the European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information (ESSLLI) Workshop on Ambiguity in Anaphora R Artstein, M Poesio 73–82 Málaga, Spain: FoLLI [Google Scholar]
  44. Mayol L, Clark R. 2010. Pronouns in Catalan: games of partial information and the use of linguistic resources. J. Pragmat. 42:781–99 [Google Scholar]
  45. Merin A. 1999. Information, relevance, and social decisionmaking: some principles and results of decision-theoretic semantics. Logic, Language, and Information L Moss, J Ginzburg, M de Rijke 2179–221 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  46. Moulin H. 1986. Game Theory for Social Sciences New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Myerson RB. 1991. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Nash JF. 1950. Non-cooperative games PhD thesis, Princeton Univ . Princeton, NJ: [Google Scholar]
  49. Osborne MJ, Rubinstein A. 1994. A course in game theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Parikh P. 1990. Situations, games, and ambiguity. Situation Theory and Its Applications R Cooper, K Mukai, J Perry 1449–69 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  51. Parikh P. 1991. Communication and strategic inference. Linguist. Philos. 14:473–514 [Google Scholar]
  52. Parikh P. 1992. A game-theoretic account of implicature. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge Y Moses 85–94 Monterey, CA: Morgan Kaufmann [Google Scholar]
  53. Parikh P. 2000. Communication, meaning, and interpretation. Linguist. Philos. 23:185–212 [Google Scholar]
  54. Parikh P. 2001. The Use of Language Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  55. Parikh P. 2010. Language and Equilibrium Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Parikh R. 1996. Vagueness and utility: the semantics of common nouns. Linguist. Philos. 17:521–35 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pavan S. 2013. Quantity implicatures and iterated admissibility. Linguist. Philos. 36:261–90 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pietarinen AVJ. 2007. Game Theory and Linguistic Meaning Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  59. Potts C, Lassiter D, Levy R, Frank MC. 2016. Embedded implicatures as pragmatic inferences under compositional lexical uncertainty. J. Semant. 33:755–802 [Google Scholar]
  60. Qing C, Franke M. 2014. Gradable adjectives, vagueness, and optimal language use: a speaker-oriented model. Proceedings of the 24th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 24) T Snider, S D'Antonio, M Weigand 23–41 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  61. Qing C, Franke M. 2015. Variations on a Bayesian theme: comparing Bayesian models of referential reasoning. Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics H Zeevat, HC Schmitz 201–20 Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  62. Ross I. 2006. Games interlocutors play: new adventures in compositionality and conversational implicature PhD thesis, Univ. Pa Philadelphia: [Google Scholar]
  63. Rothschild D. 2013. Game theory and scalar implicatures. Philos. Perspect. 27:438–78 [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubinstein A. 2000. Economics and Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Sauerland U. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguist. Philos. 27:367–91 [Google Scholar]
  66. Schelling T. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Schulz K, van Rooij R. 2006. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguist. Philos. 29:205–50 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stevens J. 2016. Focus games. Linguist. Philos. 39:395–441 [Google Scholar]
  69. Train KE. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. van Rooij R. 2004a. Relevance and bidirectional optimality theory. Optimality Theory and Pragmatics R Blutner, H Zeevat 173–210 Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  71. van Rooij R. 2004b. Utility of mention—some questions. Res. Lang. Comput. 2:401–16 [Google Scholar]
  72. van Rooij R, Franke M. 2015. Optimality-theoretic and game-theoretic approaches to implicature. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy EN Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature-optimality-games/ [Google Scholar]
  73. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Zaefferer D. 1977. Understanding misunderstandings: a proposal for an explanation of reading choices. J. Pragmat. 1:329–46 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error