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
    Sentence meaning and speaker meaning are not identical. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Sentence meaning and speaker meaning are not identical.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Sentence meaning and speaker meaning do not always coincide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Grice, speaker meaning is systematically derivable from sentence meaning plus contextual principles, making them aspects of one unified phenomenon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If speaker meaning is always recoverable via conventional implicature and maxims, the gap between sentence and speaker meaning is methodological, not ontological.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's use theory holds that meaning just is use in a form of life, collapsing the distinction between what sentences mean and what speakers do with them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If there is no meaning independent of communicative practice, positing a separate 'sentence meaning' reifies an abstraction with no explanatory purchase.
      ?

      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 Language

    Related

    For Grice, speaker meaning is systematically derivable from sentence meaning plu...If speaker meaning is always recoverable via conventional implicature and maxims...If there is no meaning independent of communicative practice, positing a separat...Sentence meaning and speaker meaning do not always coincide.
    +1 moreShow less
    Wittgenstein's use theory holds that meaning just is use in a form of life, coll...

    Similar

    Sentence meaning and speaker meaning do not always coincide.98%Sentence meaning and speaker meaning are distinct and can diverge.94%Expression meaning is explained in terms of speaker meaning.91%Hirsch is wrong that sentence meaning is identical with speaker meanin...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: beardsley-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    Once again, there’s something wrong and something right in what Beardsley says. He’s undoubtedly right that sentence meaning and speaker meaning needn’t coincide, and that that proves that the two aren’t identical. Thus the author’s intention isn’t always the final word on what a text means. That, however, doesn’t prove that the author’s intention carries no evidential weight at all. According to the alternative position, it does, but in some cases, perhaps the majority of them, not enough to ca
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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