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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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