Title : Abduction, Conversational Implicature, and Misleading
in Human Dialogues
Researchers : Chiaki Sakama and Katsumi
Inoue
Year of Publication : 2016
Source : Logic Journal of IGPL,
Volume 24(4), Pages 526–541.
DOI:10.1093/jigpal/jzw027
Dowloaded
from http://jigpal.oxfordjournals.org/
Objectives : 1. To characterize how hearers use abduction or conversational
implicatures to figure out what speakers have implicated, and how speakers use
them to mislead hearers.
2. To show
how abduction is distinguished from conversational implicatures.
Method : The method employed in
this study is using a propositional logic of belief and knowledge approach to
characterize a formal account of abduction and
conversational implicature in human dialogues.
Results : This article argued differences between abduction and
conversational implicature in human dialogues. Two different types of abduction
and two different conversational implicatures were formulated in propositional
epistemic logic. According to our formulation, abduction uses private belief of a reasoner, while conversational implicature relies on common knowledge
between participants in conversation. We also argued what happens if a hearer
does not believe an utterance or a hearer believes that a speaker is lying, and how a speaker could mislead a hearer in
various ways. The abstract framework proposed here is simple but capable of
capturing different aspects of abduction and conversational implicature in
human dialogues that have not been thoroughly investigated in the literature. Future research includes implementing agents who reason implicatures
in dialogue. Realizing dishonest agents who may mislead humans in Turing test
is also a challenging topic.
Comments : In my opinion, this journal
article has a different structure. This journal article consists of seven
sections which the first section is introduction. The second section is introducing a logic of knowledge and belief. The
next section is formulating abduction in dialogue. Following that, the forth
section is formulating conversational implicatures. Moreover, the fifth section
is addressing misleading by abduction and conversational implicatures. Then,
the sixth section is discusses related studies and the last section is
summarizing the article. However, this different structure is still well
understood. On the other hand, I would prefer having a methodological research
section rather than implying it in the introduction. I think the point the
researcher arranged those sections is to make sure that the readers could
understand the journal article easier because it uses special symbols to report
the research. Moreover, I am amazed at the conclusion that straightforwardly
covers all sections.
Komentar
Posting Komentar