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 Meaning is a function of the conventions of the language system at the time of reception, not the private psychological states of the author.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Conventions alone cannot explain metaphor, irony, or novel coinages that break rules yet successfully convey the speaker's specific intended meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A speaker can deliberately misuse conventions to mean something contrary to standard usage; audience grasps this because they infer mental intent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Meaning requires intentionality—conventions are tools speakers use to achieve communication, but the act of meaning-making originates in minds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The same sentence means different things across time periods, showing meaning depends on evolving conventions, not fixed authorial intent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Readers without access to an author's psychology can still grasp meaning through shared linguistic rules, proving psychology is unnecessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Authors often fail to express their intended meaning, yet readers successfully extract coherent meaning—suggesting convention, not intention, determines it.
?
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.