Conversation As An Alas Serious Game

In "Logic and Conversation", which linguists have learned by heart (but I haven't), Grice uses strict collocations like

"conversational game"
"conversational rule"
"conversational move"

--- the idea then can be seriously expanded -- elsewhere. In fact, my PhD is structed along those lines, with chapters for

ch. iii -- conversational moves. What counts as the 'move' in the game?

ch. vi what counts as the rule?

etc.

The idea is well-known and in fact a pretty boring, worn out one. But then there's, or shall I say, and then there's...

L. Carlson.

Appropriately hailing from Hintikka country (he of "Logic of conversation as game" in PGRICE), he wrote his PhD on this, published as _Dialogue Games_ (Reidel Synthese
Communication Library)

Carlson's "Dialogue Games" is, thus, mainly an application of GAME THEORY to
Grice.

With things like

GA INTERSEC GB = nonnull set

(Conversation is not a zero-sum game)

FB(GAp) then GBp

if B frames that A's goal is p, then B honours that goal momentarily. This ensures that at any point in the conversation, there is a shared goal.

-- slates for each stage of the conversation as to what is know about each other's minds, etc.

---

Carlson makes a rather otiose, but good, distinction between

a PLAY and a GAME.

A Game is v. general. The GAME of "Chess", for example.


When Grice speaks of 'the conversational game' he is using the simile or metaphor. He is in his 'theory' day: into theory, not analysis. He is thinking of seeing conversation AS a game if it's not one, even (cfr. his ref. to frictionless pulleys).

--- Games he accepted qua pinko-Oxonian were few: games like cricket. No rules other than rules of games, or rules of college.

--- To annoy Quine they would play SYMBOLO to prove that to think of communication or logic as a 'game' is not as dangerous or radical as Carnap thought.

On the other hand, there's A Play.

A play of bridge.

This is each INDIVIDUAL token of the type: game of chess, say.

Etc.

Cfr. Queen's song, "PLAY the GAME" of love. Freddie Mercury is playing on
the "ambiguity" "play the game". How can you PLAY the game? If Game is a
Generality, one can NEVER play the whole GAME. It should be "play the play
of love", But that, admittedly, does not sound as good (i.e that well).

Have just received Levinson's book on Implicature. Will see if the man
discusses Game Theory. I doubt it.


From ???@??? Sun Nov 11 12:34:13 2


theory (against Dean).
"
Carlson makes a distinction between a PLAY and a GAME. A Game is v.
general. The GAME of "Chess", for example. A Play, on the ohter hand, is
each INDIVIDUAL game of chess. I guess I like that!

Cfr. Queen's song, "PLAY the GAME" of love. Freddie Mercury is playing on
the "ambiguity" "play the game". How can you PLAY the game? If Game is a
Generality, one can NEVER play the whole GAME. It should be "play the play
of love", But that, admittedly, does not sound as good (i.e that well).

Have just received Levinson's book on Implicature. Will see if the man
discusses Game Theory. I doubt it.


From ???@??? Sun Nov 11 12:34:13 2