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
    Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or conveyed but even to what is ordinarily called 'what is said.'

    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.On the far side of semantic content lie implicatures, which carry pragmatic enrichment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ordinary concept of 'what is said' is satisfied by pragmatically derived propositions, which fall on the implicature side of the semantic/pragmatic boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's original distinction treats 'what is said' as determined solely by linguistic meaning plus reference assignment and disambiguation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conversational implicatures are cancellable without contradiction, whereas genuine components of 'what is said' cannot be cancelled without falsifying the utterance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Collapsing implicatures into 'what is said' eliminates the theoretical leverage Grice's distinction provides for explaining how speakers mean more than they say.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Recanati's and Carston's 'pragmatic intrusion' thesis conflates two distinct levels: the proposition expressed and the explicature, obscuring systematic semantic compositionality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If implicatures contribute to 'what is said,' the truth-conditional content of an utterance becomes indeterminate until pragmatic context is fully resolved, undermining semantic theorizing.
      ?

      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

    Related

    Collapsing implicatures into 'what is said' eliminates the theoretical leverage ...Conversational implicatures are cancellable without contradiction, whereas genui...Grice's original distinction treats 'what is said' as determined solely by lingu...If implicatures contribute to 'what is said,' the truth-conditional content of a...
    +3 moreShow less
    On the far side of semantic content lie implicatures, which carry pragmatic enri...Recanati's and Carston's 'pragmatic intrusion' thesis conflates two distinct lev...The ordinary concept of 'what is said' is satisfied by pragmatically derived pro...

    Similar

    The concept of 'what is said' is fundamentally a pragmatic concept, no...79%The proposition at the 'what is said' level should consist of a propos...77%Any planned implications must also be consciously accessible to count ...77%Ordinary speakers' intuitive concept of 'what is said' does not align ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatics
    View source passageHide passage
    Cappelen and Lepore are both literalists and minimalists. They use the term ‘semantic content’ for propositions determined solely by conventions of meaning, precisification, disambiguation and reference fixing. They allow that semantic content, so conceived, is often not what ordinary speakers would identify as ‘what is said’; but they take what is said to be a pragmatic concept, and so do not see this as an objection to their scheme. The semantic content of John’s utterance above, for example,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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