The semantic theory of language Abstract   Traditional linguistics was based on the idea that language is an activity that links sounds and meaning, an idea that has been referred to as xe2x80x98the code view of languagexe2x80x99 because codes are the most familiar processes that generate meaning. Ever since the work of Noam Chomsky, however, this view has been increasingly replaced by xe2x80x98the syntax view of languagexe2x80x99, the idea that children learn a language because they have an innate mechanism that allows them to grasp the syntax of whatever language they grow up with. This innate mechanism has been given various names xe2x80x93 first Universal Grammar, then Language Acquisition Device (LAD), and finally Faculty of Language xe2x80x93 but despite decades of research attempts there still is no evidence that such a device actually exists. At the same time, it has become increasingly clear that codes are not the sole processes that generate meaning. Another such process is the ability of higher animals to interpret what goes on in the world, and interpretation is different from coding because it is not based on fixed rules but on a process that Charles Peirce called abduction. This allows us to generalize the code view of language into the semantic view of language, a theory which maintains that language is primarily a semantic activity that gives meaning to sounds either by codes or by processes of interpretation. This view, furthermore, gives us a new theoretical framework for studying the origin of language without resorting to any deus ex machina device. In this framework the origin of language is compared with the origin of life and the origin of mind, because those mega transitions generated the three great families of codes that we find in Nature xe2x80x93 the organic codes, the neural codes and the cultural codes xe2x80x93 and it is possible that a comparative study allows us to catch a glimpse of the mechanisms that gave origin to language.

Language Games In this paper we summarize concepts from earlier work and demonstrate how infinite sequential games can be used to model strategic conversations. Such a model allows one to reason about the structure and complexity of various kinds of winning goals that conversationalists might have. We show how to use tools from topology, settheory and logic to express such goals. Our contribution in this paper is to offer a detailed examination of an example in which a player u0027defeats himselfu0027 by going inconsistent, and to introduce a simple yet revealing way of talking about unawareness. We then demonstrate how we can use ideas from epistemic game theory to define various solution concepts and justify rationality assumptions underlying a conversation.