A game-theoretic analysis on the use of indirect speech acts

References

• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blume, A. & Board, O. (2014). Intentional vagueness. Erkenn , 79 (4 Supplement), 855–899.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. (2011). Meaningful games: Exploring language with game theory . Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics . Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Franke, M. , de Jager, T. , & van Rooij, R. (2012). Relevance in cooperation and conflict. Journal of Logic and Computation , 22 (1), 23–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics , Vol. 3 (pp. 41–58). Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, L. R. (1984). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and I-based implicatures. In D. Shiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context (pp. 11–42). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jäger, G. (2008). Applications of game theory in linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass , 2 (3), 406–421.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. J. & Pinker, S. (2010). Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review , 117 (3), 785–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McMillan, C. T. , Clark, R. , Gunawardena, D. , Ryant, N. , & Grossman, M. (2012). fMRI evidence for strategic decision-making during resolution of pronoun reference. Neuropsychologia , 50 (5), 674–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mialon, H. M. & Mialon, S. H. (2013). Go figure: The strategy of nonliteral speech. American Economic Journal Microeconomics , 5 (2), 186–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parikh, P. (2001). The Use of Language . Stanford: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Parikh, P. (2007). Situations, rules, and conventional meaning: Some uses of games of partial information. Journal of Pragmatics , 39 (5), 917–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. M. , Nowak, A. , & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105 (105), 833–838.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rooij, R. V. (2003). Being polite is a handicap: Towards a game theoretical analysis of polite linguistic behavior. In M. Tennenholtz (Ed.), Proceedingsof the 9th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 20--22 June (pp. 41–58). Indiana, US.
   Google Scholar
• Rooij, R. V. (2004). Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguistics and Philosophy , 27 (4), 493–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooij, R. V. (2008). Games and quantity implicatures. Journal of Economic Methodology , 15 (3), 261–274.
   Google Scholar
• Rooij, R. V. & Sevenster, M. (2006). Different faces of risky speech. In A. Benz , G. Jager , & R. V. Rooij (Eds.), Game theory and pragmatics (pp. 152–174). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sally, D. (2001). On sympathy and games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization , 44 (1), 1–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sally, D. (2003). Risky speech: Behavioral game theory and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics , 35 (8), 1223–1245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, speech acts , Vol. 3 (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Terkourafi, M. (2011). Why direct speech is not a natural default: Rejoinder to Steven Pinker’s "Indirect speech, politeness, deniability, and relationship negotiation". Journal of Pragmatics , 43 (11), 2869–2871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittgensten, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations . Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar