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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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