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
    Collapsing implicatures into 'what is said' eliminates th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or conveyed but even to what is ordinarily called 'what is said.'

    Collapsing implicatures into 'what is said' eliminates the theoretical leverage Grice's distinction provides for explaining how speakers mean more than they say.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Grice's said/implicature distinction uniquely explains why 'Is there a gas station nearby?' conveys urgency beyond literal content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Collapsing implicatures into 'said' forces semantic content to absorb context-dependent meaning, making semantics indistinguishable from pragmatics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without this distinction, we lose explanatory power for why identical sentences mean different things in different conversational contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The said/implicature boundary is notoriously unclear; borderline cases (embedded implicatures, cancellation tests) resist principled classification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern pragmatics explains speaker meaning through general inferential mechanisms without needing Grice's theoretical distinction as explanatory foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A unified account of meaning-in-context may provide equal explanatory leverage while avoiding the complications of maintaining two separate categories.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A unified account of meaning-in-context may provide equal explanatory leverage w...Collapsing implicatures into 'said' forces semantic content to absorb context-de...Grice's said/implicature distinction uniquely explains why 'Is there a gas stati...Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or conveyed but even to wh...
    +3 moreShow less
    Modern pragmatics explains speaker meaning through general inferential mechanism...The said/implicature boundary is notoriously unclear; borderline cases (embedded...Without this distinction, we lose explanatory power for why identical sentences ...

    Details

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