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
    A hearer must infer that a cooperative speaker means some... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A hearer must infer that a cooperative speaker means something different from what the speaker literally said

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A cooperative speaker's utterance so patently violates a maxim that the literal meaning cannot be intended
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The speaker is assumed to be cooperative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Literal meaning and speaker meaning can coincide even when maxims appear violated, as hyperbole and irony can be decoded without positing a distinct non-literal intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relevance theorists like Sperber and Wilson show that hearers enrich or adjust the literal content directly rather than inferring a wholly separate meaning, collapsing the literal/non-literal distinction the claim presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The assumption of cooperativity is itself a defeasible social norm, not a logical guarantee, so hearers may rationally conclude the speaker is uncooperative or mistaken rather than implicating something further.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bach and Harnish's Linguistic Communication Model demonstrates that apparent maxim violations are often resolved by recognizing non-standard speech acts, requiring no inference beyond what was literally said.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A cooperative speaker's utterance so patently violates a maxim that the literal ...Bach and Harnish's Linguistic Communication Model demonstrates that apparent max...Literal meaning and speaker meaning can coincide even when maxims appear violate...Relevance theorists like Sperber and Wilson show that hearers enrich or adjust t...
    +2 moreShow less
    The assumption of cooperativity is itself a defeasible social norm, not a logica...The speaker is assumed to be cooperative

    Similar

    The speaker is assumed to be cooperative88%A cooperative speaker's utterance so patently violates a maxim that th...82%When a speaker's literal meaning is mutually known to be insincere, th...77%There are normally many alternative ways to be cooperative and contrib...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: implicature
    View source passageHide passage
    Relevance implicatures like (1) are thought to arise from the maxim of Relation. Barb would have infringed this maxim unless her contribution were relevant to the purpose of the conversation. If Barb was being cooperative, then she was trying to answer Alan’s question. Given that working is incompatible with partying, it is inferred that Barb must have intended to communicate that she is not going to the party. Grice (1975: 34) thought other implicatures arise by flouting maxims. This happens
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit