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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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