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
    Recanati's and Carston's 'pragmatic intrusion' thesis con... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or conveyed but even to what is ordinarily called 'what is said.'

    Recanati's and Carston's 'pragmatic intrusion' thesis conflates two distinct levels: the proposition expressed and the explicature, obscuring systematic semantic compositionality.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic compositionality requires that meaning builds predictably from parts to wholes; pragmatic intrusion at the propositional level violates this principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Explicatures are post-semantic enrichments; conflating them with propositions obscures which meanings derive from linguistic code versus pragmatic inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If pragmatic factors determine propositional content directly, then identical utterances with different contexts express different propositions, undermining systematic semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'proposition expressed' and 'explicature' may itself be theoretically unstable rather than clearly delineated in actual linguistic processing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural language semantics has always involved context-sensitivity (indexicals, quantifier scope); treating pragmatic intrusion as uniquely problematic begs the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Carston's framework preserves compositionality at the level of logical form; pragmatic intrusion occurs during truth-conditional derivation, not compositional syntax.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Carston's framework preserves compositionality at the level of logical form; pra...Explicatures are post-semantic enrichments; conflating them with propositions ob...If pragmatic factors determine propositional content directly, then identical ut...Implicatures contribute not only to what is suggested or conveyed but even to wh...
    +3 moreShow less
    Natural language semantics has always involved context-sensitivity (indexicals, ...Semantic compositionality requires that meaning builds predictably from parts to...The distinction between 'proposition expressed' and 'explicature' may itself be ...

    Details

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