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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A hearer must infer that a cooperative speaker means something different from what the speaker literally said

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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