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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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