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
    Interpreting Don's utterance as conveying the opposite of... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Ironic utterances cannot be interpreted as meaning the opposite of what is said without violating the maxim of Manner.

    Interpreting Don's utterance as conveying the opposite of its literal content treats the implicature as doing work that direct assertion could do more clearly.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Implying the opposite of what one says is less perspicuous than stating it expli...Ironic utterances cannot be interpreted as meaning the opposite of what is said ...The maxim of Manner requires speakers to be perspicuous and avoid obscurity.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A literal interpretation of Don's utterance would attribute to him a f...81%Ironic utterances cannot be interpreted as meaning the opposite of wha...80%This creates a contradiction between what is asserted and what is impl...79%Calculability of conversational implicature depends on the Determinacy...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: implicature
    View source passageHide passage
    Grice (1975: 30) recognized that his maxims may “clash”. When they do, there is no way to determine what is required for conformity to the Cooperative Principle. In the case of irony, for example, Manner clashes with Quality. When Don said “The weather’s lovely”, we cannot interpret him as meaning what he said because on that interpretation he would be violating Quality. But we cannot interpret him as meaning the opposite because then he would be violating Manner (Wilson & Sperber 2012: 18–9

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective