Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meaning shows that meaning requires communicative intention, not mere regularity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Grice's intentionality criterion faces infinite regress: the intention to communicate must itself be communicated, requiring prior meaning to explain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Linguistic meaning survives speaker death and absent intentions; understanding 'Hamlet' requires no access to Shakespeare's specific communicative intentions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Social conventions and learnable systems (languages, codes) constitute meaning independently of individual speaker intentions in each utterance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Natural meaning (smoke means fire) requires no speaker; non-natural meaning requires intentional use by an agent to communicate to an audience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A parrot mimicking words demonstrates regularity without meaning; Grice's intentionality requirement distinguishes genuine communication from mere behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Communicative intention explains why 'x means y' can be false even when x regularly correlates with y—intention determines semantic content.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42