Collective Referential Intentionality in the Semantics of Dialogue

Open access


The concept of a dialogue is considered in general terms from the standpoint of its referential presuppositions. The semantics of dialogue implies that dialogue participants must generally have a collective intentionality of agreed-upon references that is minimally sufficient for them to be able to disagree about other things, and ideally for outstanding disagreements to become clearer at successive stages of the dialogue. These points are detailed and illustrated in a fictional dialogue, in which precisely these kinds of referential confusions impede progress in shared understanding. It is only through a continuous exchange of question and answer in this dialogue case study that the meanings of key terms and anaphorical references are disambiguated, and a relevantly complete collective intentionality of shared meaning between dialogue participants is achieved. The importance of a minimally shared referential semantics for the terms entering into reasoning and argument in dialogue contexts broadly construed cannot be over-estimated. Where to draw the line between referential agreement and disagreement within any chosen dialogue, as participants work toward better mutual understanding in clearing up referential incongruities, is sometimes among the dialogue’s main points of dispute.

Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2005). Logics of Conversation, Studies in Natural Language Processing series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berkeley, G. (2013 [1734]). Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Edited by Dale Jacquette. Toronto: Broadview Press.

Bohm, D. (2004). On Dialogue (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Garrod, S. & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying What You Mean in Dialogue: A Study in Conceptual and Semantic Coordination. Cognition, 27, 181-218.

Grice, H.P. (1969). Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions’. The Philosophical Review, 68, 147-177.

Jacquette, D. (1993a). A Turing Test Conversation. Philosophy, 68, 231-233.

Jacquette, D. (1993b). A Dialogue on Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise’. Argumentation, 7, 273-290.

Jacquette, D. (2009). Dialogues on the Ethics of Capital Punishment. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jacquette, D. (2012). A Dialogue on Metaphysics. Philosophy Now, 92, 33.

Jacquette, D. (2013a). Socrates on the Moral Mischief of Misology. Argumentation, 27. On-Line First at Springer DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9298-7, and forthcoming in print.

Jacquette, D. (2013b). Review ofMaurice A. Finocchiaro,Meta-Argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory. Argumentation, 27. On-Line First at Springer DOI 10.1007/s10503-013-9301-3, and forthcoming in print.

Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1952). Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem. The Journal of Philosophy, 49, 489-498.

Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1954). Some Aspects of Philosophical Disagreement. Dialectica, 8, 245-257.

Johnstone, H.W., Jr. (1996). Locke andWhately on the Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation, 10, 89-97.

Kurkela, K. (1986). Note and Tone: A Semantic Analysis of Conventional Music Notation. Helsinki: Suomen Musiikkitieteellinen Seura Musikvetenskapliga S¨allskapet I Finland.

Minsky, M. (1969). Semantic Information Processing. Cambridge: The MIT (Bradford Books) Press.

Ong, W. J. (2005 [1958]). Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Plato (1981). Meno. Translation in G.M.A. Grube, Plato, Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Redmond, J. & Fontaine, M. (2011). How to Play Dialogues: An Introduction to Dialogical Logic. London: College Publications.

Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing With Ambiguities of Underspecification: Construction, Interpretation and Deduction. Journal of Semantics, 10, 123-179.

Rueckert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a Dynamic Framework for Logic. London: College Publications.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

The Journal of University of Bialystok

Journal Information

Cite Score 2017: 0.28

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.136
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.293


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 251 222 26
PDF Downloads 100 94 8