<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1090">
  <Title>Issues in Communication Game</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="535" end_page="535" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Meaning game captures nonnatural meaning in the restricted sense which obtains in basically all the cases of natural-language communication.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The factors which define a meaning game include grammatical function, reference by lightweight message, extralinguistic information (these affect P), grammar, cost of recalling (these affect the utility), and so on. To have a more complete game-theoretic account of natural language, we need a quantitative characterization of how those factors contribute to the game.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> We have almost restricted ourselves to references of nouns phrases, but the seemingly promising targets of game-theoretic account of natural language apparently include binding theory, convcrsational implicature (Parikh, 1992), and so on. Since our account is very general in nature, however, it should apply to language as a whole. For instance, the notion of grammaticality may well be attributed to the computational difficulty in convergence to a common game-theoretic equilibrium. Also, abductive inference involved in language understanding (Hobbs et al., 1993) (hence in language production, too, fl'om the gametheoretic, reciprocal viewpoint) is closely related with our theory. That is, the particular usefulness of abduction in natural language communication could be ascribed to the fact that language use in essence is a collaborative interaction such as discussed so far.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>