grice in the grammar: how dynamic social networks give...

Honesty Networks Language Conclusion

Grice in the Grammar: How Dynamic Social NetworksGive Rise to Honesty and Evidentials

GURT 2014

Christopher Ahern

University of Pennsylvania

March 16, 2014

Ahern (UPENN) Grice in the Grammar March 16, 2014 1 / 36

http://www8.georgetown.edu/college/gurt/2014/


[Grice(1975)]

Maxim of QualityTry to make your contribution one that is true:

1 Do not say what you believe to be false.2 Do not say that for which you lack evidence.

Cooperative PrincipleMake your conversational contribution such as isrequired, at the stage at which it occurs, by theaccepted purposes or direction of the talk exchange.



[Grice(1975)]

I am, however, enough of a rationalist towant to find a basis that underlies thesefacts, undeniable though they may be; Iwould like to be able to think of the standardtype of conversational practice not merely assomething that all or most do in fact followbut as something that it is reasonable for usto follow, that we should not abandon.



Questions

Why abide by the Maxim of Quality and the Cooperative Principle?

What consequences for the structure of language?



Outline

1 Honesty

2 Networks

3 Language

4 Conclusion



Cooperation

[Nowak(2006)]

Cooperation means that selfishreplicators forgo some of their reproductivepotential to help one another. But naturalselection implies competition and thereforeopposes cooperation unless a specificmechanism is at work.



Cooperation

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Cooperate DefectCooperate b− c, b− c −c, bDefect b, −c 0,0



Cooperation

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Cooperate DefectCooperate 5, 5 −5, 10Defect 10, −5 0,0



Signaling

[Searcy and Nowicki(2005)]

One might expect many instances inwhich signalers would attempt to profitindividually by conveying dishonestinformation.

...if dishonesty is common, it also is notobvious why receivers should respond tosignals.

...if receivers fail to respond to signals, itis not obvious how signaling systems canexist at all.



Mechanisms

[Mencken(1949)]

Conscience is the inner voice thatwarns us somebody may be looking.



Mechanisms

[Scott-Phillips(2008)]

1 Indices: signal form is tied to meaning2 Handicaps: costs borne by honest senders3 Deterrents: costs borne by dishonest senders



Mechanisms

[Reby and McComb(2003)]



Mechanisms

[Zahavi(1975)] [Grafen(1990)] [Spence(1973)]



Simulations

Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma

1 Each agent has rate ofcooperation, θ ∈ [0,1]

2 Agents interact, update strengthof relationship

3 Relationships below threshold areremoved


http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~cahern/images/Ahern-GURT-2014-quality-ipd.gif


Simulations

Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma



Simulations

[Apicella et al.(2012)Apicella, Marlowe, Fowler, and Christakis]



Simulations

Iterated Information Sharing



Simulations


1 Agents have information aboutstate of the world, τ ∈ [0,1]

2 Agents choose to shareinformation, θ ∈ [0,1]

3 Agents update strength ofrelationship according toreliability

4 Relationships below threshold areremoved


http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~cahern/images/Ahern-GURT-2014-quality-communication.gif


Simulations




Again

[Grice(1975)]

Maxim of QualityTry to make your contribution one that is true:

1 Do not say what you believe to be false.2 Do not say that for which you lack evidence.



Again

[Grice(1975)]

Cooperative PrincipleMake your conversational contribution such as isrequired, at the stage at which it occurs, by theaccepted purposes or direction of the talk exchange.



Division

[Lakoff(1973)]

HedgingA robin is sort of a bird.

A penguin is sort of a bird.

A bat is sort of a bird.

A cow is sort of a bird.



Division

[Davis et al.(2007)Davis, Potts, and Speas]

Quality Threshold [Potts(2007)]An utterance U by speaker S in context Csatisfies quality iff its quality rating, µC(U), isabove the quality threshold Cτ for C.

Evidentials, Modals, HedgesSpeakers can signal quality threshold theyexpect an utterance to be evaluated by.Conventionally implicate commitment to somedifferent quality threshold Cτ ′ .



Division

[Horn(1984)]

Division of Pragmatic LaborUnmarked form associated with more frequentmeaning

Marked form associated with less frequentmeaning



Evidentials

WALS [Dryer and Haspelmath(2013)]


http://wals.info/feature/77A#2/26.7/154.5


Evidentials

WALS [Dryer and Haspelmath(2013)]


http://wals.info/chapter/77


Questions

Questions

Why abide by the Maxim of Quality and the Cooperative Principle?Maintenance of relationships and standing

Still allows room for varying thresholds

What consequences for the structure of language?Pragmatic pressures shape linguistic structure

Yesterday’s pragmatics is today’s morphosyntax!



Future Directions

Future Directions

TheoreticalRicher notions of interactions

Broader definition of information

EmpiricalControlled testing of use

Cross-linguistic comparisons



Future Directions

Thanks!



Future Directions

Bibliography I

Coren L. Apicella, Frank W. Marlowe, James H. Fowler, and Nicholas A.Christakis.Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers.Nature, 481(7382):497–501, 2012.

Christopher Davis, Christopher Potts, and Margaret Speas.The pragmatic values of evidential sentences.In Proceedings of SALT, volume 17, pages 71–88, 2007.

Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath, editors.WALS Online.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, 2013.URL http://wals.info/.


http://wals.info/


Future Directions

Bibliography II

A. Grafen.Biological signals as handicaps.Journal of theoretical biology, 144(4):517–546, 1990.

H.P. Grice.Logic and conversation.In Studies in the Way of Words, pages 22–40. Harvard University Press,1975.

L. Horn.Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-basedimplicature.In D. Schiffrin, editor, Meaning, form, and use in context, volume 42,pages 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1984.



Future Directions

Bibliography III

G. Lakoff.Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.Journal of philosophical logic, 2(4):458–508, 1973.

H.L. Mencken.A Mencken Chrestomathy.Vintage, 1949.

Martin A. Nowak.Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation.Science, 314(5805):1560–1563, 2006.



Future Directions

Bibliography IV

Christopher Potts.Conversational implicatures via general pragmatic pressures.In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, pages 205–218. Springer,2007.

D. Reby and K. McComb.Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weightin the roars of red deer stags.Animal behaviour, 65(3):519–530, 2003.



Future Directions

Bibliography V

T.C. Scott-Phillips.On the correct application of animal signalling theory to humancommunication.In A. D. M. Smith, K. Smith, and R. Ferrer i Cancho, editors, Theevolution of language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conferenceon the Evolution of Language, pages 275–282, Singapore, 2008. WorldScientific Press.

William A. Searcy and Stephen Nowicki.The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception inSignaling Systems.Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005.



Future Directions

Bibliography VI

M. Spence.Job market signaling.The quarterly journal of Economics, 87(3):355–374, 1973.

A. Zahavi.Mate selection–a selection for a handicap.Journal of theoretical Biology, 53(1):205–214, 1975.


grice in the grammar: how dynamic social networks give...

Documents