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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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