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
    Mutual knowledge of a language L sufficient for communica... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Mutual knowledge of a language L sufficient for communication is achieved only after a given linguistic use occurs, not before it.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Once a relevant linguistic use takes place, speaker and hearer converge on shared meanings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This convergence produces mutual knowledge of L that was not present antecedently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Successful communication presupposes antecedent shared linguistic conventions, as Grice's cooperative maxims require pre-established mutual expectations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lewis's account in 'Convention' (1969) demonstrates that language use itself presupposes prior common knowledge of regularities, not the reverse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without antecedent mutual knowledge of at least some semantic and syntactic norms, utterances would be indistinguishable from noise, precluding any post-hoc convergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chomskyan internalism holds that linguistic competence is a stable cognitive state antecedent to any particular communicative exchange.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If speakers' shared grammatical knowledge is psychologically real prior to utterance, mutual knowledge of L is constituted before, not after, any given use occurs.
      ?

      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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    Chomskyan internalism holds that linguistic competence is a stable cognitive sta...If speakers' shared grammatical knowledge is psychologically real prior to utter...Lewis's account in 'Convention' (1969) demonstrates that language use itself pre...Once a relevant linguistic use takes place, speaker and hearer converge on share...
    +3 moreShow less
    Successful communication presupposes antecedent shared linguistic conventions, a...This convergence produces mutual knowledge of L that was not present antecedentl...Without antecedent mutual knowledge of at least some semantic and syntactic norm...

    Similar

    Antecedent knowledge of a language L is not sufficient to guarantee su...89%Antecedent knowledge of a shared language L is not sufficient to guara...86%The gap between insufficient antecedent linguistic knowledge and succe...83%If some necessary truths are only knowable a posteriori, then linguist...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: idiolects
    View source passageHide passage
    Davidson’s position, conceived as an objection to Lewis, comes with three separate claims. First, as demonstrated in the case of malapropisms, antecedent knowledge of L prior to a given use may not be enough to reach successful communication, because “prior meanings” may not coincide between speaker and hearer and, thus, antecedent knowledge is not mutual. Second, once the relevant use takes place, mutual knowledge of L is reached, which is enough to achieve communication, but such knowledge is
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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