Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T21:55:26.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialogue Semantics Versus Game-Theoretical Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Esa Saarinen
Esa Saarinen*
Affiliation:
Academy of Finland and UCLA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I shall attempt to compare the dialogue approach originally advocated by Lorenz and Lorenzen and the game-theoretical approach of Hintikka with each other. I shall not try to present any survey of either one of the approaches and will assume that the reader is familiar with the basic ideas of these theories.

The original works of Lorenzen and Lorenz have been reprinted in their while Stegmüller contains a survey (in English) of the basic ideas and results. Works in this tradition which apply the approach to quantum logic include Denecke, Mittelstaedt Mittelstaedt and Stachow, Stachow. The reader will also find van Dunn, Krabbe, Lorenz and Stachow to be relevant.

The literature on Hintikka’s game-theoretical semantics as applied both to different formal languages (including infinitary languages and intensional logic) and to natural language is rapidly growing. As for the latter, the reader is referred to papers by Hintikka, Carlson and myself reprinted in Saarinen, to Carlson and ter Meulen, and to Saarinen.

Type
Part II. Game Theoretic Semantics for the Language of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 41 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Barwise, Jon. “On Branching Quantifiers in English.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8(1979): 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Carlson, Lauri and ter Meuien, Alice. “Informational Independence in Intensional Contexts.” In Essays in Honour of Jaakko Hintikka. Edited by Saarinen, E. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979. Pages 61-72Google Scholar
[3] Denecke, H.M. “Quantum Logic for Quantifiers.” Journal of Philosophical Logic. 6(1977): 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Dunn, F. van “On the Modes of Opposition in the Formal Dialogues of P. Lorenzen.” Logique et Analyse 15(1972): 103–136.Google Scholar
[5] Gabbay, Dov. “Tense Logics and the Tenses of English.” In Logic and Philosophy for Linguists. Edited by Moravesik, J.M.E. The Hague: Mouton, 1974. Pages 177–186.Google Scholar
[6] Hintikka, Jaakko. Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[7] Hintikka, Jaakko. “Language Games for Quantifiers.” In Studies in Logical Theory. Edited by Rescher, N. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968. Pages 46–72. (Reprinted in [8]. Pages 53-82.)Google Scholar
[8] Hintikka, Jaakko. Logic, Language-Games and Information. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[9] Hintikka, Jaakko. and Rantala, Veikko. “A New Approach to Infinitary Languages.” Annals of Mathematical Logic 10(1976): 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Krabbe, Erik C.W. “The Adequacy of Material Dialogue-Games.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 19(1973): 321–330.Google Scholar
[11] Lorenz, K. “Rules versus Theorems.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(1973): 352–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Lorenzen, P. and Lorenz, K. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978.Google Scholar
[13] Mittelstaedt, Peter. “Time Dependent Propositions and Quantum Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 6(1977): 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Mittelstaedt, Peter. Quantum Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Mittelstaedt, Peter. and Stachow, E.W. “The Principle of Excluded Middle in Quantum Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 7(1978): 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Peacocke, C.A.B. “Game-Theoretic Semantics, Quantifiers, and Truth: Comments on Professor Hintikka’s Paper.” In [22]. Pages 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Rantala, Veikko. “Urn Models: A New Kind of Non-Standard Model for First-Order Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(1975): 455–474. (Reprinted in [22]. Pages 347–366.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Rantala, Veikko. Aspects of Definability (Acta Philosophica Fennica). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977.Google Scholar
[19] Rantala, Veikko. “Extension of Partial Isomorphism and Game Theoretical Semantics.” In Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic. Edited by Hintikka, J. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1978. Pages 119–151.Google Scholar
[20] Saarinen, Esa. “Game-Theoretical Semantics.” The Monist 60(1977): 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Saarinen, Esa. “Backwards-Looking Operators in Intensional Logic and in Philosophical Analysis: A Summary.” Reports from the Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki, no. 7/1977.Google Scholar
[22] Saarinen, Esa. (ed.). Game-Theoretical Semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Saarinen, Esa. “Backwards-Looking Operators in Tense Logic and in Philosophical Analysis.” In Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic. Edited by Hintikka, J. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1978. Pages 341–367. (Reprinted in [22]. Pages 215-344.)Google Scholar
[24] Stachow, E.W. “Completeness in Quantum Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 5(1976): 237–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Stachow, E.W. “How Does Quantum Logic Correspond to Physical Reality.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 6(1977): 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Stachow, E.W. “Quantum Logical Calculi and Lattice Structures.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 7(1978): 347–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27] Stachow, E.W. “On a Game-Theoretical Approach to a Scientific Language.” In PSA 1978. Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 19–40.Google Scholar
[28] Stegmüller, Wolfgang. “Remarks on the Completeness of Logical Systems Relative to the Validity-Concepts of P. Lorenzen and K. Lorenz.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 5(1964): 81–112. (Reprinted in W. Stegmüller. Collected Papers on Epistemology, Philosophy of Science and History of Philosophy. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1977. Pages 241–277.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Stenius, Erik. “Comments on Jaakko Hintikka’s Paper.” Dialectica 30(1976): 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Vlach, Frank. “Now and Then”: A Study in the Logic of Tense Anaphora. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1973. Xerox University Microfilms Publication No. 73-28997.Google Scholar