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 own framework accommodates non-standard implicature cases where speakers exploit conventions with partial concealment of their full meaning.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Grice's framework requires that implicatures be calculable through explicit reasoning; true concealment undermines the transparency requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If meaning is intentionally hidden, the speaker may violate the Maxim of Clarity, contradicting Grice's cooperative principle foundations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Partial concealment suggests the speaker doesn't openly intend the hearer to recognize their meaning—violating Grice's mutual knowledge condition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Grice's framework distinguishes utterance meaning from speaker meaning, allowing speakers to convey propositions beyond conventional semantics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Implicature requires mutual recognition between speaker and hearer; partial concealment preserves this cooperative principle if discoverable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Irony, metaphor, and understatement are genuine implicatures that exploit conventions while obscuring literal content—Grice's model explains these.
?
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.