8.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conversation theory | 3/5 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_theory | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T07:11:08.773848+00:00 | kb-cron |
Both commands and questions of the type
D
(
R
)
{\displaystyle D(R)}
have the following basic form, which is taken from Nicholas Rescher's formalisation of The Logic of Commands (1966):
D
(
R
)
=
<
Z
!
X
|
Y
>
{\displaystyle D(R)\ =\ <Z!\ X\ |\ Y\ >}
Where
Z
!
{\displaystyle Z!}
obligates the addressee or receiver of the command or question to act in accordance with the intention of the messenger, and
|
{\displaystyle |}
is a conditional relation. Therefore, the expression
X
|
Y
{\displaystyle X\ |\ Y}
can be read as "Do X, given Y". In terms of speech-acts which take the form of commands and questions, they may sufficiently take the form of the below expressions:
C
o
m
m
i
=
<
Z
!
E
x
e
c
Z
i
|
P
r
e
c
o
n
>
E
Q
u
e
s
t
i
=
<
Z
!
E
x
p
l
Z
i
|
P
r
e
c
o
n
>
{\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}Comm\ i&=&<Z!\ Exec_{Z}\ i\ |\ Precon\ >\\EQuest\ i&=&<Z!\ Expl_{Z}\ i\ |\ Precon\ >\end{array}}}
For example, if some conversational participant
A
{\displaystyle A}
issues a command to conversational participant
B
{\displaystyle B}
then the utterance would take the form of "Attention Addressee! Do such-and-such, in relation to so-and-so" or "Attention Z! Do such-and-such, given this parameter". However, not all operations in the command and question language are prescriptive. For example, providing explanations to others, or executing actions within a modelling facility do not prescribe that the other participant act but are processes that build a conceptual model or attempt to convey it within a conversation.
E
x
p
l
i
=
<
α
,
β
,
γ
,
.
.
.
,
R
>
E
x
e
c
i
=
<
a
,
b
,
c
,
.
.
.
,
M
>
{\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}Expl\ i&=&<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,...,R>\\Exec\ i&=&<a,b,c,...,M>\end{array}}}
Where for the first operator the Greek letters—e.g.,
α
,
β
,
γ
{\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }
—designate a series of linguistic expressions that help compose the sense of a topic relation within an explanation, and where for the second operator there exist a series of partial models—e.g.,
a
,
b
,
c
{\displaystyle a,b,c}
—and the derived working model
M
{\displaystyle M}
that form the process of some execution.
=== Concepts === The term concept in conversation theory is contextualised differently to other uses of the term concept. It has been argued that in conversation theory a concept is not a mental representation nor an abstract idea nor is it strictly speaking an ability—as commonly articulated within the subfield of conceptual ontology. While it has properties which intersect with all these ontologies, a concept is treated in conversation theory in terms of a non-localised process which attempt to maintain the coherence of some set of relations with themselves in the face of incompatibilities. A concept is not the product of such a process—such as a symbol or mental coordinate—but an ongoing process of feedback which produces, maintains and modulates some set of topics. It is also not a class, nor description of a class, nor a stored description: Instead, a concept is specifically used to reconstruct, reproduce or stabilize relations. In this sense, they may be sufficiently conceived as mental organisations or working models that hold a hypothesis and seek to test said hypothesis in order to confirm or deny its validity.
==== Formal Structure ==== Strictly speaking, a concept in conversation theory—as described by Pask—is conceived of as the production, reproduction, and maintenance of a given topic relation
R
i
{\displaystyle R_{i}}
via other topic relations belonging some conversational domain
R
{\displaystyle R}
. This implies that all topic relations—within some area of a conversational domain—must mutually entail each other through a cyclic process of reciprocation.
Now if we let
R
H
{\displaystyle R_{H}}
denote some arbitrary head topic relation that may be discussed, then it is considered identical to a procedural working model of said relation that produces it.
R
H
=
P
R
O
C
(
R
H
)
{\displaystyle R_{H}=PROC(R_{H})}
In which a working model of said relation is treated as identical to its concept:
P
R
O
C
(
R
H
)
=
C
O
N
(
R
H
)
{\displaystyle PROC(R_{H})=CON(R_{H})}