ABSTRACT
The propphsal sketched in Section 2.4 specifies that a falling declarative commits the Speaker to its content, while a rising declarative commits the Addressee. To implement this propphsal, I begin with the familiar notion of the Common Ground (Stalnaker 1978). Under Stalnaker’s classic treatment, the Common Ground (hereafter CG) is a set of propphsitions representing what the participants in a discourse take to be mutually believed, or at least mutually assumed for the purpphses of the discourse. I assume, as Stalnaker does, a framework in which a propphsition is construed as a set of worlds, the worlds of which the propphsition is true. The CG can be defined in propphsitional terms as follows:
(56 ).
