Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Assertion.Compare

Assertion Theories: Cross-Theory Comparison #

@cite{brandom-1994} @cite{farkas-bruce-2010} @cite{gunlogson-2001} @cite{krifka-2015} @cite{lauer-2013} @cite{stalnaker-1978}

Compares six theories of assertion along structural dimensions: Stalnaker, Farkas & Bruce, Krifka, Brandom, Gunlogson, and Lauer.

Comparison Matrix #

TheoryCommitment ≠ BeliefRetractionSourceEntitlementsProbabilistic
StalnakerNoNoNoNoNo
F&BYesNoNoNoNo
KrifkaYesYesNoNoNo
BrandomYesYesNoYesNo
GunlogsonYesYesYesNoNo
LauerYesNoNoNoYes

Key Embeddings #

  1. Stalnaker embeds in Krifka: when commitment = belief (no lying, no hedging), Krifka's model collapses to Stalnaker's.
  2. F&B's dcS/dcL are Krifka commitment states: dcS = speaker's commitment slate, dcL = addressee's commitment slate.
  3. Brandom strictly richer than Stalnaker: entitlements have no Stalnaker analog.
  4. Gunlogson models rising declaratives; Stalnaker cannot.
  5. Lying: Krifka and Brandom handle it (commitment without belief); Stalnaker struggles (assertion = belief update).

Summary comparison record for one theory.

  • name : String

    Theory name

  • separates : Bool

    Separates commitment from belief?

  • retraction : Bool

    Supports retraction?

  • source : Bool

    Models source marking?

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      The full comparison matrix.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        The matrix agrees with the interface flags.