Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Merel Semeijn - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

Merel Semeijn

Amsterdam colloquium 2019

December 19, 2019

SLIDE 2

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

Common Ground

Set of presuppositions mutually shared by conversational participants Bob is coming back next week [Stalnaker(2002), Stalnaker(1984)]

SLIDE 3

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff Bap Bbp BbBap BaBbp BaBbBap BbBaBbp . . . . . . Accap Accbp BbAccap BaAccbp BaBbAccap BbBaAccbp . . . . . . Ca,bp Cb,ap Cb,aCa,bp Ca,bCb,ap Ca,bCb,aCa,bp Cb,aCa,bCb,ap . . . . . . [Stalnaker(2002), Stokke(2013), Geurts(1997)]

SLIDE 4

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

Generalized common ground

p is common ground between all conversational participants in some community iff ∀x(Cx → Bxp) ∀x∀y(Cx ∧ Cy → BxByp)) ∀x∀y∀z(Cx ∧ Cy ∧ Cz → BxByBzp)) . . . [Lewis(1969), Schiffer(1972)]

SLIDE 5

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

p is common ground between Monk and Semeijn iff Bmp Bsp BsBmp BmBsp BmBsBmp BsBmBsp . . . . . .

SLIDE 6

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

p is common ground between Monk and Semeijn iff Bmp Bsp BsBmp BmBsp BmBsBmp BsBmBsp . . . . . .

SLIDE 7

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso

Table of Contents

1 The problem

De re common ground and acquaintance relations Four types of conversations

2 Redefining common ground

Abelard’s distinction In sensu composito common ground In sensu diviso common ground

3 Deriving de re beliefs 4 The shy aquaintance

SLIDE 8

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem

Table of Contents

1 The problem

De re common ground and acquaintance relations Four types of conversations

2 Redefining common ground

Abelard’s distinction In sensu composito common ground In sensu diviso common ground

3 Deriving de re beliefs 4 The shy aquaintance

SLIDE 9

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

Relation analysis of de re belief

a believes de re of b that he is Q There is an acquaintance relation from a to b, and a believes that the person she knows through this acquaintance relation is Q ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι v[R1(i, v)])]] ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι Ri

1)]]

[Kaplan(1968), Lewis(1979)]

SLIDE 10

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

Relation analysis of de re belief

a believes de re of b that he is Q There is an acquaintance relation from a to b, and a self-ascribes the property of being such that the person she knows through this acquaintance relation is Q ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι v[R1(i, v)])]] ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι Ri

1)]]

[Kaplan(1968), Lewis(1979)]

SLIDE 11

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

Relation analysis of de re belief

a believes de re of b that he is Q There is an acquaintance relation from a to b, and a self-ascribes the property of being such that the person she knows through this acquaintance relation is Q ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι v[R1(i, v)])]] ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[Q(

ι Ri

1)]]

[Kaplan(1968), Lewis(1979)]

SLIDE 12

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

Iterative de re belief

a believes de re of b that b believes de re of c that she is Q (BaBbQc) a is acquainted with both b and c and a self-ascribes the property

• f being such that b is acquainted with c and that b self-ascribes

the property of being such that “the person that I am acquainted with is Q” ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ ∃R2[R2(a, c) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R3[R3(

ι Ri

1,

ι Ri

2)] ∧

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[Q(

ι Ri′

3 )]]]]

[Maier(2009)]

SLIDE 13

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

Iterative de re belief

a believes de re of b that b believes de re of c that she is Q (BaBbQc) a is acquainted with both b and c and a self-ascribes the property

• f being such that b is acquainted with c and that b self-ascribes

the property of being such that “the person that I am acquainted with is Q” ∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ ∃R2[R2(a, c) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R3[R3(

ι Ri

1,

ι Ri

2)] ∧

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[Q(

ι Ri′

3 )]]]]

[Maier(2009)]

SLIDE 14

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

De re common ground

p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 15

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

De re common ground

p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 16

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

De re common ground

p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 17

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem De re common ground and acquaintance relations

De re common ground

p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 18

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem Four types of conversations

‘Face-to-face’ communication ✓

Lunch conversation/ email from friend

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 19

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem Four types of conversations

Unknown addressee ✗

Book/ broadcasted speech/ blogpost

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 20

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem Four types of conversations

Unknown speaker ✗

Anonymous message

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 21

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The problem Four types of conversations

Unknown addressee and speaker ✗

Double blind peer review

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 22

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground

Table of Contents

1 The problem

De re common ground and acquaintance relations Four types of conversations

2 Redefining common ground

Abelard’s distinction In sensu composito common ground In sensu diviso common ground

3 Deriving de re beliefs 4 The shy aquaintance

SLIDE 23

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground

General beliefs

Monk does have beliefs about what his readers believe

SLIDE 24

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground Abelard’s distinction

Two types of generality

In sensu composito a believes that “every F is P” Ba∀x(Fx → Px) In sensu diviso For every F, if if a is in a relevant situation with F, then a believes

• f F that it is P

∀x((Fx ∧ Sax) → BaPx) Abelard, [Lewis(1969)]

SLIDE 25

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground Abelard’s distinction

Two types of generality

Monk believes that his readers believe that p In sensu composito Monk believes that “every reader believes that p” In sensu diviso For every reader, if Monk is acquainted with them, then Monk be- lieves of them that they believe that p

SLIDE 26

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground In sensu composito common ground

In sensu composito common ground

a believes that “the addressee believes that p” p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′′[p]]]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′′[p]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 27

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground In sensu composito common ground

In sensu composito common ground

a believes that “the addressee believes that p” p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′′[p]]]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′′[p]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 28

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground In sensu diviso common ground

In sensu diviso common ground

If a is acquainted with b, then a believes of them that they believe that p p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∀R1[R1(b, a) → B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(a, b) → B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(a, b) → B∗

aλi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

∀R1[R1(b, a) → B∗

bλi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 29

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Redefining common ground In sensu diviso common ground

In sensu diviso common ground

If a is acquainted with b, then a believes of them that they believe that p p is common ground between speaker a and addressee b iff

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∀R1[R1(b, a) → B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(a, b) → B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(a, b) → B∗

aλi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

∀R1[R1(b, a) → B∗

bλi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 30

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Table of Contents

1 The problem

De re common ground and acquaintance relations Four types of conversations

2 Redefining common ground

Abelard’s distinction In sensu composito common ground In sensu diviso common ground

3 Deriving de re beliefs 4 The shy aquaintance

SLIDE 31

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Four types of communication

Face-to-face communication ✓ Unknown addressee ✗ Unknown speaker ✗ Unknown addressee and speaker ✗

SLIDE 32

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Unknown addressee and speaker

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′′[p]]]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′′[p]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 33

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Unknown addressee

The identity of the speaker a is ‘known’ ⇒ a = ι x[Sx] is common ground e.g. ∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[

ι Ri

1 =

ι x[Sx]]]

SLIDE 34

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Unknown addressee

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[p]]

B∗

aλi[∃R1[R1(

ι x[Ax], i)∧ ∃R1[R1(b, a)∧ B∗ ι

x[Ax]λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

1 λi′′[p]]]]

B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′′[p]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 35

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Face-to-face communication

The identity of the speaker a and addressee b is ‘known’ ⇒ a = ι x[Sx] is common ground and b = ι x[Ax] is common ground e.g. ∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[

ι Ri

1 =

ι x[Sx]]] ∧∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[

ι Ri

1 =

ι x[Ax]]]

SLIDE 36

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso Deriving de re beliefs

Face-to-face communication

B∗

aλi[p]

B∗

bλi[p]

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∃R1[R1(a, b) ∧ B∗

aλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∃R1[R1(b, a) ∧ B∗

bλi[∃R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i)

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

∧B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 37

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Table of Contents

1 The problem

De re common ground and acquaintance relations Four types of conversations

2 Redefining common ground

Abelard’s distinction In sensu composito common ground In sensu diviso common ground

3 Deriving de re beliefs 4 The shy aquaintance

SLIDE 38

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

The shy acquaintance

Thea’s blogpost: The Sims was

• riginally designed as an architec-

ture simulator (p) ∃R1[R1(t, n)∧¬B∗

t λi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

SLIDE 39

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

The shy acquaintance

In sensu diviso common ground ✗

B∗

t λi[p]

B∗

nλi[p]

∀R1[R1(n, t) → B∗

nλi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(t, n) → B∗

t λi[B∗

ι

Ri

1λi′[p]]]

∀R1[R1(t, n) → B∗

t λi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

∀R1[R1(n, t) → B∗

nλi[∀R2[R2(

ι Ri

1, i) →

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

B∗ ι

Ri

1λi′[B∗

ι

Ri′

2 λi′′[p]]]]]

. . . . . .

In sensu composito common ground ✓

B∗

t λi[p]

B∗

nλi[p]

B∗

nλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′[p]]

B∗

t λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[p]]

B∗

t λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi′′[p]]]

B∗

nλi[B∗

ι

x[Sx]λi[B∗

ι

x[Ax]λi′′[p]]]

. . . . . .

SLIDE 40

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Thea at the Christmas dinner

I gave my husband that architecture simulation game ✗

SLIDE 41

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Thea writing another blogpost

I gave my husband that architecture simulation game ✓

SLIDE 42

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Conclusions and further research

Non face-to-face communication poses problem for traditional de re common ground definitions In sensu composito In sensu diviso The shy acquaintance: prima fa- cie argument for in sensu com- posito definition Braithwaite’s account

• f generality:

∀x((Fx ∧ Sa, x ∧ BaFx) → BaPx) [Braithwaite(1932)] Further constraints

• n

‘relevant’ acquaintance relations

SLIDE 43

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Bibliography I

Richard Bevan Braithwaite. The nature of believing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, 33(1):129–146, 1932. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/33.1.129. Bart Geurts. Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical linguistics, 45(1-2):1–30, 1997. David Kaplan. Quantifying in. Synthese, 19(1-2):178–214, 1968. ISSN 0039-7857. doi: 10.1007/BF00568057.

SLIDE 44

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Bibliography II

David Lewis. Convention: A philosophical study. Blackwell, 1969. David Lewis. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The philosophical review, 88(4):513–543, 1979. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2184843. Emar Maier. Iterated de re: A new puzzle for the relational report semantics. In Arndt Riester and Torgrim Solstad, editors, Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, pages 347–355, 2009. Stephen Schiffer. Meaning. Clarendon Press, 1972.

SLIDE 45

Common ground: In sensu composito or in sensu diviso The shy aquaintance

Bibliography III

Robert Stalnaker. Inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1984. Robert Stalnaker. Common ground. Linguistics and philosophy, 25(5-6):701–721, December 2002. ISSN 0165-0157, 1573-0549. doi: 10.1023/A:1020867916902. URL http://link.springer.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/article/10. 1023/A%3A1020867916902. Andreas Stokke. Lying and Asserting. Journal of Philosophy, 110(1):33–60, 2013.