Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] because every embedding func... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The accessibility relation between DRSs is not stipulated but is entailed by the semantics of the DRS language

    [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] because every embedding function considered for [6c2] is an extension of an embedding function for [6c1]

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    The accessibility relation between DRSs is not stipulated but is entailed by the...The converse does not hold, which explains the asymmetry of the accessibility re...This extension relation entails that every discourse referent in [6c1] is also d...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    In [6c], [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] but not the converse74%This extension relation entails that every discourse referent in [6c1]...74%The discourse referent y is introduced in [6c2] and is therefore not a...71%Anaphora is not possible in [6c] because y is not accessible to z69%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: discourse-representation-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Accessibility is in the first instance a relation between DRSs; derivatively, it is also a relation between discourse referents. [6c1] is accessible to [6c2], but not the other way round, and therefore the discourse referents introduced in [6c1], i.e., x and z, are accessible from [6c2], but conversely, if we are in [6c1] we have no access to [6c2] and its discourse referents, i.e., y. Thus in [6c] anaphora is not possible because y is not accessible to z. In [4a], by contrast, anaphora is poss

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective