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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Katz and Fodor's semantic decomposition demonstrates that primitive features like [+ANIMATE] and [+HUMAN] systematically explain selectional restrictions that surface forms cannot.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Primitive features [+ANIMATE] are themselves undefined primitives; decomposition merely relocates rather than solves the explanation problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pragmatic and world-knowledge factors ('rocks cannot be frightened') better explain restrictions than abstract semantic features divorced from context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern corpus studies show many apparent violations of classical selectional restrictions (e.g., metaphor, metonymy), undermining the claimed systematicity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Selectional restrictions like 'kill' requiring [+ANIMATE] objects show systematic patterns across unrelated languages, suggesting underlying universal features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Surface form alone cannot explain why 'The idea frightened him' works but 'The idea frightened the rock' doesn't—semantic features provide necessary explanatory depth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Children acquire these restrictions rapidly without explicit instruction, implying innate semantic primitives guide grammatical competence.
      ?

      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.