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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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