Let's Read! H. Paul Grice, 1975, "Logic and Conversation"

No video

Let's Read! H. Paul Grice, 1975, "Logic and Conversation"

Рет қаралды 3,956

Күн бұрын

Full paper:
Charles James Napier, who supposedly sent the message "peccavi", meaning "I have sinned/Sindh": en.wikipedia.o...
Dissertation of Irene Heim, who gives one of the most up-to-date treatments of the meaning of indefinite expressions, "an X", and why we typically interpret such expressions as referring to new entities that aren't familiar or already mentioned: semanticsarchi...

Пікірлер: 10

@sarahday4275 2 жыл бұрын

as a dyslexic linguistic student i am going to put this simply: THANK YOU!

@iRosati Жыл бұрын

thank you! this is the reading for my literary theory seminar and it is dense

@cheez1903 8 ай бұрын

Very well made video, well explained

@whygiy4637 3 жыл бұрын

Very epic👌

@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын

What if I said the following: If one of you completes the quest i'll give you a thousand euro, if no one completes the quest you all get a piece of candy. - Afterwards, one person succeeds in te quest, but I dont give him the cash price and I dont give anyone the piece of candy either- How can this be true?

@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын

If I understand your scenario right, I think that what you said would be false if you don't give the prize or the candy.

@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын

@@keaswaran0 I have just sort of solved the case (I think), because on the truth table p->q v ~p -> r , is always true. So the literal/conventional meaning is true. But it can be argued to be misleading I think

@Acez-lf4qk Жыл бұрын

@@keaswaran0 Because the Conversational implicature would probably contain, the actual promise of giving the rewards. And the speaker therefore does not abide by the conversational maxims

@keaswaran0 Жыл бұрын

@@Acez-lf4qk I was interpreting the claim as (p->q)&(~p->r), with an "and" rather than an "or". There would definitely be a conversational implicature of the "and" if you said the "or", but if you actually said the "and" (or said both sentences separately, which I think should be the same as saying them with an "and") then it would just be literally false if you didn't do the thing that you said you would in that case.