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
    Sneaky intentions must be ruled out of speech act analyse... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Sneaky intentions must be ruled out of speech act analyses based on communicative intentions

    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
    ?
    • 1.Genuine communication is essentially open: the speaker's communicative intentions are meant to be fully accessible to the hearer
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sneaky intentions violate the requirement of openness in genuine communication
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory locates successful communication in cognitive effects achieved, not in the full mutual recognition of every layer of speaker intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many ordinary speech acts—irony, understatement, diplomatic hedging—succeed communicatively despite the speaker intentionally withholding complete transparency about their intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Excluding sneaky intentions on openness grounds therefore rules out a recognized class of genuine, theoretically tractable communicative acts rather than merely pathological cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's own framework accommodates non-standard implicature cases where speakers exploit conventions with partial concealment of their full meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Gricean pragmatics, the source of communicative-intention analysis, permits layered intentions not fully transparent to hearers, the openness requirement is internally unmotivated.
      ?

      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

    Excluding sneaky intentions on openness grounds therefore rules out a recognized...Genuine communication is essentially open: the speaker's communicative intention...Grice's own framework accommodates non-standard implicature cases where speakers...If Gricean pragmatics, the source of communicative-intention analysis, permits l...
    +3 moreShow less
    Many ordinary speech acts—irony, understatement, diplomatic hedging—succeed comm...Sneaky intentions violate the requirement of openness in genuine communicationSperber and Wilson's relevance theory locates successful communication in cognit...

    Similar

    Legal interpretation should not automatically seek the speaker's commu...79%Indirect speech acts can be accounted for within a planning and reason...77%Even if a text meant whatever the speaker meant or intended to communi...76%Therefore, a speaker's intention is criterial for linguistic conventio...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: assertion
    View source passageHide passage
    Such intentions to mislead came to be called sneaky intentions (Grice 1969), and they constituted a problem for speech act analyses based on communicative intentions. The idea was that genuine communication is essentially open: the speaker’s communicative intentions are meant to be fully accessible to the hearer. Sneaky intentions violate this requirement of openness, and therefore apparently they must be ruled out one way or another. Strawson’s own solution was to add a fourth clause about the
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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