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 Secondary meaning (rather than primary meaning) applies when the ordinary meaning of words cannot form a connective relationship with other words in a sentence.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's theory of conversational implicature shows that non-literal meaning arises from pragmatic inference, not semantic failure at the word level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'anvaya' (connective) failure criterion conflates semantic incompatibility with pragmatic infelicity, since 'The boy is a lion' is semantically well-formed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If secondary meaning were triggered only by connective failure, systematic metaphors with no detectable semantic clash would be left without explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Contextualism in philosophy of language, as defended by Recanati and Travis, holds that context modulates primary meaning directly without invoking a secondary semantic level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contextual saturation can adjust the primary meaning of 'Ganges' to denote a riverbank, the Mīmāṃsaka positing of a distinct secondary meaning (lakṣaṇā) is ontologically redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Words in a sentence must form a connective relationship through their meanings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the primary meaning of a word fails to connect with the meanings of other words in the sentence, a different level of meaning must be invoked.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In sentences like 'The village is on the Ganges' and 'The boy is a lion,' the primary meanings of 'Ganges' and 'lion' cannot form a coherent connective relationship with the other words.
      ?

      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.