The Intuitive Invalidity of the Pain-in-Mouth Argument

Analysis (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In a recent paper, Reuter, Sienhold and Sytsma (2019) put forward an implicature account to explain the intuitive failure of the pain-in-mouth argument. They argue that utterances such as ‘there is tissue damage/a pain/an inflammation in my mouth’ carry the conversational implicature that there is something wrong with the speaker’s mouth. Appealing to new empirical data, this paper argues against the implicature account and for the entailment account, according to which pain reports using locative locutions, e.g. ‘There is a pain in my mouth’, are intuitively understood as entailing corresponding predicative locutions, e.g. ‘My mouth hurts’. On this latter account, the pain-in-mouth argument seems invalid because the conclusion is naturally understood as entailing something which cannot be inferred from the premises. Implications for the philosophical debate about pain are also drawn.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-05-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Unfelt pain.Reuter, Kevin & Sytsma, Justin

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
37 ( #45,106 of 50,155 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #16,835 of 50,155 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.