We incorporate natural language into games, focusing here on the class of signaling games. The sender, using a commonly understood language, can make cheap-talk statements about the strategy that he is using. Because the sender knows his strategy, any statement that he makes is either true according to its literal meaning or is intentionally false or deceptive. It is shown that if the receiver interprets any off-path statement by the sender as true unless it may be seen as a rational attempt to deceive, then the only outcomes of the game without language that survive the introduction of language are, generically, those that are stable in the sense of Kohlberg and Mertens (1986). Incorporating language into game theory can thus reap significant benefits, with the potential to significantly refine equilibrium predictions in ways that are more intuitive and more easily justified than when language is absent.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Feb 2, 2026

Diversionary Escalation: Theory and Evidence from Eastern Ukraine

Natalie Ayers, Christopher W. Blair, Joseph J. Ruggiero, Austin L. Wright, and Konstantin Sonin
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jan 26, 2026

Never Enough: Dynamic Status Incentives in Organizations

Leonardo Bursztyn, Ewan Rawcliffe, and Hans-Joachim Voth
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jan 21, 2026

Rational Disagreement

Nabil I. Al-Najjar and Harald Uhlig
Topics: Uncategorized