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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.