Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The defeasibility of discourse-relation inferences is better explained by pragmatic cancellability than by a distinct linguistic module.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Discourse relations exhibit structural properties (binding constraints, island effects) characteristic of linguistic modules, not pragmatics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some discourse inferences are automatic and pre-conscious, resisting the deliberative cancellation characteristic of pragmatic reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Pragmatic accounts struggle to explain why certain discourse relations are strongly preferred regardless of speaker communicative goals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Discourse inferences show the same cancellation patterns as scalar implicatures, which are paradigmatically pragmatic phenomena.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Positing a dedicated linguistic module for discourse relations multiplies theoretical entities beyond what empirical evidence requires.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Pragmatic accounts explain why discourse inferences vary with context, speaker intentions, and listener expectations uniformly.
?
How convincing is this?
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.