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 system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) is inadequate for representing the issue in question.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Inquisitive semantics requires that issues be representable as sets of possibilities closed under subset, yet not all natural language questions satisfy this constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Groenendijk & Roelofsen (2009) acknowledge that alternative questions generate non-partition-based issues that resist reduction to indifference relations over finite world-sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a system cannot represent the issue depicted in Figure 1 under any assignment of its formal primitives, it is structurally inadequate, not merely incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin (1973) established that the semantic value of a question is a set of propositions, not an equivalence partition, meaning partition-based systems systematically under-generate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An indifference relation over {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} can only generate issues whose possibilities are unions of equivalence classes, excluding non-transitive dependency structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The issue in Figure 1 encodes a non-transitive informational dependency that is expressible in Hamblin-style or Ciardelli-Roelofsen (2011) inquisitive frameworks but not in partition semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The issue cannot be represented by means of an indifference relation in their system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An indifference relation over the information state {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} necessarily contains all reflexive world-pairs, and possibly one, two, or three non-reflexive pairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In none of these cases does the resulting issue correspond to the one depicted in Figure 1.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    An indifference relation over the information state {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} necessari...An indifference relation over {w_pq, w_qr, w_pr} can only generate issues whose ...Groenendijk & Roelofsen (2009) acknowledge that alternative questions generate n...Hamblin (1973) established that the semantic value of a question is a set of pro...
    +5 moreShow less
    If a system cannot represent the issue depicted in Figure 1 under any assignment...In none of these cases does the resulting issue correspond to the one depicted i...Inquisitive semantics requires that issues be representable as sets of possibili...The issue cannot be represented by means of an indifference relation in their sy...The issue in Figure 1 encodes a non-transitive informational dependency that is ...

    Similar

    Any issue-resolving response to Q must be an element of the meaning of...75%(18D) lacks an adequate subject as it stands72%The issue cannot be represented by means of an indifference relation i...72%In none of these cases does the resulting issue correspond to the one ...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: questions
    View source passageHide passage
    The problem with the system of Groenendijk (2009) and Mascarenhas (2009) is manifested by the fact that this issue cannot be represented by means of an indifference relation. An indifference relation over the information state \(\{w_{pq},w_{qr},w_{pr}\}\) necessarily contains all reflexive world-pairs, and possibly one, two, or three non-reflexive pairs. In either case, however, the resulting issue does not correspond to the one depicted in Figure 1.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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