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
    Anaphora is not possible in [6c] because y is not accessi... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Anaphora is not possible in [6c] because y is not accessible to z

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.Accessibility is a relation between DRSs and derivatively between discourse referents
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In [6c], [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] but not the converse
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The discourse referent y is introduced in [6c2] and is therefore not accessible from [6c1]
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Accessibility constraints in DRT are stipulated structural rules, not explanatory principles grounded in cognitive or semantic reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Discourse anaphora in natural language frequently violates DRT accessibility hierarchies, as shown by Sells (1985) on 'backwards anaphora' in conditionals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a formal constraint generates empirically incorrect predictions about natural language use, it cannot be the correct account of anaphoric possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Discourse anaphora is better explained by salience and centering theory (Grosz, Joshi & Weinstein 1995) than by box-structural accessibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Centering theory predicts anaphoric availability based on attentional state, not hierarchical DRS containment relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conditional's consequent discourse referent can be sufficiently salient in context to license anaphora even from structurally 'prior' positions.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    A conditional's consequent discourse referent can be sufficiently salient in con...Accessibility constraints in DRT are stipulated structural rules, not explanator...Accessibility is a relation between DRSs and derivatively between discourse refe...Anaphora requires the antecedent discourse referent to be accessible to the anap...
    +6 moreShow less
    Centering theory predicts anaphoric availability based on attentional state, not...Discourse anaphora in natural language frequently violates DRT accessibility hie...Discourse anaphora is better explained by salience and centering theory (Grosz, ...If a formal constraint generates empirically incorrect predictions about natural...In [6c], [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] but not the converseThe discourse referent y is introduced in [6c2] and is therefore not accessible ...

    Similar

    In [6c], [6c1] is accessible to [6c2] but not the converse81%The discourse referent y is introduced in [6c2] and is therefore not a...77%B → B fails at x when there is an accessibility relation Rxyz such tha...73%Motion is altogether impossible (as shown by the Arrow paradox)70%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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