Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Grice's Modified Occam's Razor demands we not multiply senses beyond necessity when a pragmatic implicature suffices to explain apparent meaning shifts.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Frequent pragmatic derivations of meaning become conventionalized and stored as distinct senses (e.g., 'catch' meanings).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Native speakers rapidly access multiple meanings without pragmatic computation, suggesting they're lexically encoded.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The principle conflates explanation with cognitive plausibility—pragmatic sufficiency doesn't prove speakers use that route.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pragmatic implicatures are psychologically real and computationally simpler than storing multiple lexical meanings.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Occam's Razor applied to semantics avoids proliferating senses without empirical evidence they're stored distinctly.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Context-driven meaning shifts (like 'The ham sandwich left') are better explained by inference than lexical ambiguity.
?
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.