Building the common ground with demonstratives

Abstract The semantic value of a demonstrative in a given context is the object of joint attention shared by the participants in a conversation, which King refers to as the ‘coordinated object.’ This is at least the case when the speaker’s plan to align perspectives is successful. However, when there is a conflict between the intended reference and what is made manifest by a demonstration, either no coordinated object is established, or the semantic value is the demonstratum. This is King’s response to Kaplan’s Carnap/Agnew scenario. His explanation does not address how the reference to an object becomes part of the common ground. Reference selection always occurs against a doxastic background and results from the collaborative efforts of the agents involved in the conversation. I propose an amendment to King’s coordination account that more accurately reflects the collaborative nature of referring. However, it is uncertain whether this amendment results in a metasemantics for demonstratives. The introduction of a reference to an object in the common ground exhibits the distinctive features of pragmatic processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Manuscrito
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2025.v48n1.es
Primary Topic
Speech and dialogue systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Building the common ground with demonstratives

Ernesto Perini‐Santos
Manuscrito
Speech and dialogue systems
article

Building the common ground with demonstratives

Ernesto Perini‐Santos
article en

Abstract

Abstract The semantic value of a demonstrative in a given context is the object of joint attention shared by the participants in a conversation, which King refers to as the ‘coordinated object.’ This is at least the case when the speaker’s plan to align perspectives is successful. However, when there is a conflict between the intended reference and what is made manifest by a demonstration, either no coordinated object is established, or the semantic value is the demonstratum. This is King’s response to Kaplan’s Carnap/Agnew scenario. His explanation does not address how the reference to an object becomes part of the common ground. Reference selection always occurs against a doxastic background and results from the collaborative efforts of the agents involved in the conversation. I propose an amendment to King’s coordination account that more accurately reflects the collaborative nature of referring. However, it is uncertain whether this amendment results in a metasemantics for demonstratives. The introduction of a reference to an object in the common ground exhibits the distinctive features of pragmatic processes.

ManuscritoVol. 48(1)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Speech and dialogue systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.