The Difference between Lying and Misleading

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Stokke
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Conversational Implicatures ◽  
The World ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Prosodic Focus

The notions of what is said and assertion, as relative to questions under discussion, are used to provide an account of the lying-misleading distinction. The chapter argues that utterances are sometimes interpreted relative to the so-called Big Question, roughly paraphrased by “What is the world like?” This observation is shown to account for the fact that, when conveying standard conversational implicatures, what is asserted is likewise proposed for the common ground. The chapter applies the resulting account of the lying-misleading distinction to ways of lying and misleading with incomplete predicates, possessives, presuppositions, pronouns, and prosodic focus. A formal notion of contextual questionentailment is defined which shows when it is possible to mislead with respect to a question under discussion while avoiding outright lying.

Between High Culture and Low Culture; and also The Difference Between Popular Culture and Folk Culture

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Kunal Debnath
Keyword(s):  
Popular Culture ◽  
Folk Culture ◽  
Common People ◽  
High Culture ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Low Culture

High culture is a collection of ideologies, beliefs, thoughts, trends, practices and works-- intellectual or creative-- that is intended for refined, cultured and educated elite people. Low culture is the culture of the common people and the mass. Popular culture is something that is always, most importantly, related to everyday average people and their experiences of the world; it is urban, changing and consumeristic in nature. Folk culture is the culture of preindustrial (premarket, precommodity) communities.

scholarly journals I Do Not Exist. Problems for Dynamic Semantics

2018 ◽  
pp. 393-414
Author(s):  
Eduardo García Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Dynamic Semantics ◽  
Recent Proposal ◽  
Static Semantics ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Existential Constructions ◽  
The Common

According to dynamic semantics, what is said by an utterance of a sentence is determined by how the common ground is affected by the acceptance of such utterance. It has been claimed that dynamic semantics offers an account of what is said by an utterance in a context that excels that of traditional static semantics. Assertions of negative existential constructions, of the form ‘X does not exist’, are a case in point. These assertions traditionally pose a problem for philosophers of language. A recent proposal, owed to Clapp (2008), argues that static semantics is unable to solve the problem and offers a dynamic semantics account that promises to succeed. In this paper I want to challenge this account and, more generally, the scope of the dynamic semantics framework. I will offer a counterexample, inspired by “answering machine” uses of indexical and demonstrative expressions, to show how dynamic semantics fails.  I conclude by considering the merits of both static and dynamic accounts.

God and his Attributes

Gersonides ◽  
2010 ◽  
pp. 59-80
Author(s):  
Seymour Feldman
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Underlying Assumption ◽  
Human Reason ◽  
Anselm Of Canterbury ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
Religiously Based ◽  
Articles Of Faith ◽  
Basic Beliefs

This chapter explains how the existence of God is philosophically provable. It adopts the terminology of Thomas Aquinas about some of the basic beliefs of monotheistic religion. In attempting to delineate the distinct domain of theology, Aquinas distinguished between the “preambles of faith” and the “articles of faith.” This chapter analyzes the underlying assumption that human reason can prove and explain some of the basic beliefs of monotheistic religion. Not only does it discuss the common ground for philosophy and faith, but it explains monotheistic religions without religiously based assumptions. It describes the ontological proof of Anselm of Canterbury and points out various arguments about the world and how they cannot be explained without positing the existence of God.

A Theory of Background Conditions

2018 ◽  
pp. 23-87
Author(s):  
Bradford Skow
Keyword(s):  
Alternative View ◽  
Background Condition ◽  
Common View ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Difference

The common view about background conditions is that the difference between causes and background conditions is pragmatic, drawn in language not the world. This chapter defends an alternative view, on which the difference is metaphysical, drawn in the world not in language. This alternative says that something is a background condition to C’s causing E iff it is a state (rather than an event) that is a reason why C caused E. This theory is used to answer the question of what it is to manifest a disposition; briefly, something manifests a disposition to M in C if its having that disposition is a background condition to the Cing causing the Ming.

Multiple Sluicing, Scope, and Superiority: Consequences for Ellipsis Identity

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hadas Kotek ◽  
Matthew Barros
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Scalar Implicatures ◽  
Truth Conditional ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
Semantic Identity ◽  
Context Of Utterance

This article defends a semantic identity account of ellipsis licensing. The argument comes from examples of multiple sluicing, especially from Russian. Concentrating on antecedents that contain two quantified statements, we uncover a surprising asymmetry: surface scope antecedents can license a multiple sluice, but inverse scope antecedents cannot. We explain this finding in terms of semantic accounts of ellipsis licensing, where ellipsis is licensed when the sluice corresponds to an (implicit) question under discussion. We show that QUDs cannot be computed from the truth-conditional content of the antecedents alone; instead, they must be computed only after (scalar) implicatures have been calculated and added to the common ground, along with the context of utterance. We further discuss the commitments required of syntactic/LF identity accounts of ellipsis licensing in order to accommodate multiple sluicing with quantified antecedents, and argue that such accounts are practically untenable.

scholarly journals Computing the meaning of the assertive speech act by a software agent

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Brian Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Contextual Information ◽  
Software Agent ◽  
Cultural Knowledge ◽  
Illocutionary Force ◽  
What Is Said ◽  
Situation Type ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

This paper examines the nature of the assertive speech act of Irish. We examine the syntactical constructional form of the assertive to identify its constructional signature. We consider the speech act as a construction whose meaning as an utterance depends on the framing situation and context, along with the common ground of the interlocutors. We identify how the assertive speech act is formalised to make it computer tractable for a software agent to compute its meaning, taking into account the contribution of situation, context and a dynamic common ground. Belief, desire and intention play a role in <em>what is meant</em> as against <em>what is said</em>. The nature of knowledge, and how it informs common ground, is explored along with the relationship between knowledge and language. Computing the meaning of a speech act in the situation requires us to consider the level of the interaction of all these dimensions. We argue that the contribution of lexicon and grammar, with the recognition of belief, desire and intentions in the situation type and associated illocutionary force, sociocultural conventions of the interlocutors along with their respective general and cultural knowledge, their common ground and other sources of contextual information are all important for representing meaning in communication. We show that the influence of the situation, context and common ground feeds into the utterance meaning derivation. The ‘<em>what is said’</em> is reflected in the event and its semantics, while the ‘<em>what is meant’</em> is derived at a higher level of abstraction within a situation.

Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak and the Knight of Faith by Kierkegaard: Common Ground

2020 ◽  
pp. 48-64
Author(s):  
Alla Radionova
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Women's Images ◽  
Boris Pasternak ◽  
Modern Culture ◽  
The World ◽  
Rational Thought ◽  
The Common ◽  
Moral Model

The article deals with the intertextual relationships of the novel «Doctor Zhivago» by B. Pasternak and the treatise «Fear and Trembling» by Søren-Kierkegaard. Pasternak mentioned Kierkegaard in his works and noted his great influence on modern culture. While Pasternak was working on the novel, he used the concept of chivalry, which was an allusion to Kierkegaard. In his treatise «the Knight of Faith» is a moral model that has overcome the fetters of rational thought and broken out of the temporary boundaries. S. Kierkegaard gives his description, which is directly related to the themes and motives associated with the image of Yuri Zhivago. Both Kierkegaard and Pasternak emphasize that the heroes of the high spirit merge with the human community, they cannot be distinguished from the general population with their private existences; the authors carefully contemplate the world around them, trying to penetrate into the very essence of each phenomenon, they differ in external carelessness with the utmost tension of the inner spiritual life. In their self-denial they renounce the most beloved, precious, valuable. Their love takes the form of religious veneration, and the beloved combines the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and the divine. They transfer the pain of double existence and the pain of loss into the realm of the spiritual, the creative, and the realm of memory. In the treatment of women's images in «Doctor Zhivago» Pasternak is equally focused on both Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, between whom, in turn, there are many similarities. The common ground between the two texts proves the presence of purposeful inter-system interaction.

scholarly journals Existence and Needs: A case for the equal moral considerability of non-human animals

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-33
Author(s):  
Yamikani Ndasauka ◽  
Grivas M. Kayange
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Hierarchy Of Needs ◽  
Abraham Maslow ◽  
Moral Considerability ◽  
The World ◽  
Common Foundation ◽  
The Common

This paper reflects on the question, “Is there a sound justification for the existential view that humans have a higher moral status than other animals?” It argues that the existential view that humans have a higher moral status than animals is founded on a weak and inconclusive foundation. While acknowledging various arguments raised for a common foundation between human and non-human animals, the paper attempts to establish a common ground for moral considerability of human and non-human animals. The first common foundation is based on the existential notion of being in the world, which is common for both human and non-human animals. The second idea is based on the common desire to actualize different needs. The paper demonstrates these common foundations by referring to Heidegger and Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  

Echoicity and contrast in Spanish conditionals

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-635
Author(s):  
Elena Castroviejo ◽  
Laia Mayol
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Simple Analysis ◽  
Contrastive Topic ◽  
Pragmatic Function ◽  
Pragmatic Reasoning ◽  
Question Under Discussion ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Joint Occurrence

Abstract This paper is concerned with a conditional construction in Spanish, which we call echoic contrastive conditional, ecc for short. In eccs, the consequent is entailed, the antecedent echoes the content of a previous assertion, and both antecedent and consequent are marked with a Contrastive Topic. Our goal is to fit these properties in a formal explanation compatible with a simple analysis of conditionals. We claim that eccs are a subtype of biscuit conditional, in that antecedent and consequent are independent (i.e. do not express a hypothetical relation). Additionally, we assume that pragmatic reasoning has to explain why a conditional is used to express an adversative relation between the two clauses. First, a proposition that has already been proposed to increase the Common Ground is placed in the antecedent of a conditional in which there is no hypothetical relation between p and q. Thus, the addressee needs to reason as to the pragmatic function the speaker wants to achieve. Second, the Contrastive Topic marking signals that both conjuncts are answers to a multiple wh-question, proposed by the speaker as the current Question Under Discussion (QUD). Third, the answer provided by the second conjunct is a stronger argument for the speaker’s communicative goal than the one provided by the first conjunct. The joint occurrence of echoicity, lack of dependence and Contrastive Topic marking leads to an adversative rhetorical relation between the conjuncts.

scholarly journals What Does a Mythopoetic Inquiry Look Like?

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanna Ruebsaat
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Art Making ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common

A Mythopoetic Inquiry is a narrative of the imagination which creates an alternate story to the dominant story (individually or collectively). We create the story as we are living it; writing the narrative at the same time as we are reading it to ourselves and the world. Creating a vision while seeing; an imaginative vision about what is and what can be. A mythopoetic inquiry has its own logic but also needs to connect to reality. Art making (and other creative activities), can be a bridge between imagination and reality; letting the art tell the story from that liminal place between the conscious and unconscious. It is important to consider that there are practical aspects of this imagining. As humans we have a shared imagination (myths and archetypes) that is the common ground of this imagining.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document