<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W03-1408">
  <Title>The Semantics of Metaphor in the Game Theoretic Semantics with at Least Two Cordination Equilibria</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="1" end_page="2" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The objective of this paper is to present a new dimension of Game Theoretic Semantics (GTS) using the idea of the cordination problem game in a search for the semantics of metaphor: (ex.1) 'Man is a human being.' (ex.2) 'Man is a wolf.' If being 'man' presuposes being 'human being', then what (ex.1) means is that al objects faling under the category (or the set) of 'man' also fal under 'human being', so (ex.1) must be true a priori. In the same way, (ex.2) means that al objects faling under 'man' also fal under 'wolf', and this must be false, a contradictory expresion. But we can easily imagine some situations where (ex.2) would be meaningful.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> EXAMPLE: Sue went to a party. Her friend, Pam introduced Ian to her because she knew Sue had broken up recently, and she had a belief that Sue should have a new partner. Sue enjoyed the conversation with him and found him very atractive. Ian apeared to fel the same way. When Sue tok her leave, Ian offered a lift for her. Pam, who was watching out for them, winked and said 'Sue, 'man is a wolf', you know'.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In this example, Pam's utering 'man is a wolf' does not sem contradictory. It is very natural and loks meaningful even though it may admit several interpretations. Therefore, this kind of sentence can be meaningful in our everyday usage.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> But utering a contradictory expresion is a deviation from our general understanding about language use. The uterer's intentions as to why such a deviation is made, its intended efects and the conditions to materialize the intended efects: these have ben the objective of the study of metaphor in the tradition of rhetoric.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Metaphor has ben regarded as a part of rhetoric. But if we focus on the fact that it uses 'uterer' and 'use' as its items, it may be natural to regard rhetoric as a part in pragmatics in the trichotomy of syntax, semantics and pragmatics in the late 20th century linguistic paradigm. In the first section, I wil examine the pragmatic aproach, Aristotle and Davidson, and make clear that these are not enough to present what metaphor means, and we ned to chose a semantic aproach.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Richards, who opened the new path to semantics, introduced the idea of 'tension'. In the tradition of rhetoric, metaphor had ben thought to have 'two thoughts in a sentence'  (Richards). Richards explained the special property that metaphorical expresion has and normal expresion does not, is in the tension, which is born betwen these two thoughts in one expresion. What Richards cals 'tension' is the interaction of meanings betwen literal meaning and metaphorical meaning in an expresion. This 'tension', which canot be explained by a pragmatic aproach, is the foundation of the semantic aproach lead by Richards and Black.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  What Richards means by 'thoughts' is not clear, but I asume it is literal meaning and metaphorical meaning. Partly he sems to admit two meanings and partly he sems to admit only one meaning in metaphorical expresion. Sometimes he sems to mean comparison objects as in comparison theory. However what is important is not what he meant, but what he sugests. However, even semantic aproach had failed to explain 'tension' completely. It is because major semantics based on the Tarskian truth definition state the meaning of a sentence is only one. 'Tension' neds to have more than two meanings in a sentence by definition.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Existing GTS uses mainly zero-sum games. The equilibrium is coresponded to the meaning of a sentence, so each sentence has one meaning. This does not met the condition of meaning that we demand for the semantics of metaphor in the line of Richards' idea.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The cordination problem game is a type of game which Lewis analyses as a part of this theory of convention (Lewis, 1961). There must be at least more than two equilibria in the game by definition. If we aply this game as a model of meaning in GTS, those equilibria can corespond to the plural meanings in a metaphorical expresion. This conclusion promises us a simple model of the complex state of meanings in figurative language.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>