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
    Discourse relations are part of linguistic knowledge, not... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Discourse relations are part of linguistic knowledge, not merely reflections of cooperative conversation and maxim following or flouting

    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.Pronoun resolution in discourse (e.g., interpreting 'him' in ambiguous sentences) depends on which discourse relation connects the sentences
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The search for discourse relations to settle pronominal reference is a systematic linguistic phenomenon
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defeasibility of the inference (via explicit correction) parallels Gricean cancellation, suggesting a principled linguistic mechanism rather than mere pragmatic inference
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's Cooperative Principle already predicts systematic, predictable inferences without positing them as encoded linguistic knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The defeasibility of discourse-relation inferences is better explained by pragmatic cancellability than by a distinct linguistic module.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If an inference is consistently cancelable without contradiction, this is the hallmark of implicature, not semantic or grammatical encoding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cross-linguistic variation in discourse coherence markers suggests discourse relations are culturally negotiated conventions, not universal linguistic structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson) derives coherence effects from general cognitive principles of relevance, rendering a specialized linguistic discourse module redundant.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    Cross-linguistic variation in discourse coherence markers suggests discourse rel...Defeasibility of the inference (via explicit correction) parallels Gricean cance...Grice's Cooperative Principle already predicts systematic, predictable inference...If an inference is consistently cancelable without contradiction, this is the ha...
    +4 moreShow less
    Pronoun resolution in discourse (e.g., interpreting 'him' in ambiguous sentences...Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson) derives coherence effects from general cogni...The defeasibility of discourse-relation inferences is better explained by pragma...The search for discourse relations to settle pronominal reference is a systemati...

    Similar

    A relation is whatever must be predicated on two subjects.81%When a relation is determined by the meanings of constituents and thei...80%External relations are mere abstractions from relational facts80%Identity, rather than correspondence, is the relation that must hold b...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ambiguity
    View source passageHide passage
    Clearly, the ‘him’ in (43) can be interpreted as Phil or Stanley. But, crucially, how you interpret ‘him’ will depend on how you connect the two sentences. On the one hand, the interpretation of ‘him’ as referring to Phil goes hand in hand with a causal relation – its was the tickling that caused the poking (known as a result relation. Interpreting ‘him’ as referring to Stanley suggests goes hand in hand with a parallel relation. Of course the inference is defeasible – one can always break the c
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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