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
    The level corresponding to Grice's 'what is said' is dete... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The level corresponding to Grice's 'what is said' is determined not only by semantics, disambiguation, and reference-fixing, but also by additional pragmatic processes that enrich semantic content.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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.Contextualists hold that pragmatic processes 'intrude' on the near side of semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These pragmatic processes enrich semantic content beyond what is fixed by semantics, disambiguation, and reference-fixing alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's 'what is said' is constrained by the conventional meaning of words and their syntactic arrangement, leaving no room for free pragmatic enrichment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing unconstrained pragmatic intrusion collapses the distinction between 'what is said' and 'what is implicated', undermining Grice's theoretical architecture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Recanati's 'availability principle' cannot reliably demarcate legitimate enrichment from post-hoc rationalization without a principled semantic boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Minimalists like Cappelen and Lepore argue that alleged pragmatic enrichments are better analyzed as implicatures, preserving a minimal, context-invariant semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The contextualist conflation of encoded meaning with pragmatic modulation generates an unbounded regress: any enrichment can itself be further enriched without semantic anchor.
      ?

      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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Grice(as a philosopher who developed the theory being discussed)
    Paul Grice was a 20th-century philosopher who studied how we communicate meaning through language, especially the difference between what words literally say and what speakers actually mean by them.
    Reference-fixing(philosophy of language)
    The process of determining what a word actually points to or means—deciding that 'the Morning Star' refers to Venus, for example.
    disambiguation(as a process that helps determine what is said)
    The process of figuring out which meaning a word has when it could mean multiple things (like 'bank' meaning either a riverbank or a financial institution).
    enrich semantic content(as describing how pragmatics adds to literal meaning)
    To add extra layers of meaning or implications on top of a word's basic, dictionary definition.
    pragmatic processes(as processes that add layers of meaning to what words literally say)
    The ways our understanding of context, social situation, and speaker intention shape what we think someone means—beyond just the literal words.
    semantics(Distinguished from metasemantics and pragmatics in Kaplan 1989)
    The domain that concerns the facts about what meanings words or phrases have.
    what is said(Contrasted with 'semantic content' in the literalist/minimalist framework)
    The contextually relevant proposition an ordinary speaker would identify as the content of an utterance; treated by Cappelen and Lepore as a pragmatic concept rather than a semantic one.

    Related

    Allowing unconstrained pragmatic intrusion collapses the distinction between 'wh...Contextualists hold that pragmatic processes 'intrude' on the near side of seman...Grice's 'what is said' is constrained by the conventional meaning of words and t...Minimalists like Cappelen and Lepore argue that alleged pragmatic enrichments ar...
    +3 moreShow less
    Recanati's 'availability principle' cannot reliably demarcate legitimate enrichm...The contextualist conflation of encoded meaning with pragmatic modulation genera...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatics
    View source passageHide passage
    Those over on the Contextualist side, in contrast, see the level corresponding to Grice’s ‘what is said’ as determined not only by semantics, disambiguation and reference-fixing, but also by a number of other pragmatic processes that ‘intrude’ on the near side and enrich semantic content. Contextualists include relevance theorists and such philosophers as Recanati (2004), Travis (1997), Korta and Perry (2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2011, 2013) and Neale (2004). Contemporary contextualists d
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    These pragmatic processes enrich semantic content beyond what is fixed by semant...

    Similar

    Ordinary speakers' intuitive concept of 'what is said' does not align ...83%The concept of 'what is said' is fundamentally a pragmatic concept, no...83%The mismatch between semantic content and intuitive 'what is said' is ...83%The ordinary concept of 'what is said' is satisfied by pragmatically d...82%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit