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
    Barb intended to communicate that she is not going to the... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Barb intended to communicate that she is not going to the party

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.Barb's contribution must be relevant to the purpose of the conversation (maxim of Relation)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Barb was being cooperative, she was trying to answer Alan's question
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Working is incompatible with partying
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's framework requires distinguishing what is said from what is implicated, and Barb's utterance only conventionally encodes that she is working.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference that working precludes the party is a defeasible pragmatic inference, cancelable without contradiction (e.g., 'I'm working, but I'll stop by later').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A cancelable inference cannot constitute communicative intention in the robust sense required for Gricean implicature to be attributed with confidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson) holds that utterance interpretation is driven by optimal relevance to the hearer, not by cooperative maxims the speaker consciously intends to exploit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Relevance Theory, the inference that Barb won't attend is a contextual implication constructed by Alan's cognitive system, not a determinate intention Barb necessarily encoded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Attributing communicative intention to Barb therefore conflates the hearer's inferential contribution with the speaker's intentional communicative act.
      ?

      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 Language

    Related

    A cancelable inference cannot constitute communicative intention in the robust s...Attributing communicative intention to Barb therefore conflates the hearer's inf...Barb said she was workingBarb's contribution must be relevant to the purpose of the conversation (maxim o...
    +6 moreShow less
    Grice's framework requires distinguishing what is said from what is implicated, ...If Barb was being cooperative, she was trying to answer Alan's questionRelevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson) holds that utterance interpretation is dri...The inference that working precludes the party is a defeasible pragmatic inferen...Under Relevance Theory, the inference that Barb won't attend is a contextual imp...Working is incompatible with partying

    Similar

    Working is incompatible with partying72%Barack Obama is a member of the Democratic party and is not a member o...68%Any utterance of 'I am not speaking' would be false.65%TNA therefore predicts the speaker should assert 'I don't have a cat a...65%

    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