Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Semantics.Dynamic.Epistemic.Basic

Neo-Stalnakerian Formalization of Assertion #

@cite{rudin-2025} @cite{stalnaker-1978} @cite{veltman-1996} @cite{kratzer-1981}

Rudin proposes that when a speaker asserts a sentence s, she predicates her epistemic state: she presents herself as though she knows s, and proposes the context be updated to reflect that knowledge. This is formalized via the meta-intensionalization function MI, which maps s to the set of epistemic states compatible with knowing s.

Applied uniformly to all declaratives, this single mechanism derives:

  1. Standard Stalnakerian intersective update for non-epistemic sentences (§4.1)
  2. @cite{veltman-1996}'s consistency-test semantics for epistemic might (§4.2)
  3. A novel ordering-source update for might on @cite{kratzer-1981} semantics (§5)

The key insight: epistemic modals get nonstandard updates not because they have special update semantics, but because they are speaker-orientedly epistemic in the same way that assertion is.

Part 1: Core Types #

@[reducible, inline]

Information-sensitive denotation: ⟦s⟧ⁱ(w). Truth value may depend on the epistemic state i.

Equations
Instances For

    Lift a plain proposition to an information-insensitive denotation. For sentences like "John is dead" whose truth doesn't vary with i.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Simple quantificational semantics for epistemic might: ⟦might-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∃w' ∈ i, p(w') = true. Truth is insensitive to the evaluation world w.

      eq. (25); adapted from @cite{yalcin-2007}.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Simple quantificational semantics for epistemic must: ⟦must-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∀w' ∈ i, p(w') = true.

        Appendix A, eq. (57).

        Equations
        Instances For

          Part 2: Meta-Intensionalization #

          Meta-intensionalization: the set of epistemic states the speaker could hold if she knows s to be true.

          MI(s) = { i : ∀w ∈ i, ⟦s⟧ⁱ(w) = 1 }
          

          When a speaker asserts s, she presents herself as though her epistemic state is a member of MI(s).

          Definition (10).

          Equations
          Instances For

            Refinement: i' refines i iff i' ⊆ i. Removing worlds monotonically increases information.

            Definition (13).

            Equations
            Instances For

              A context c is s-compatible iff some non-empty refinement is in MI(s).

              Definition (18).

              Equations
              Instances For

                Rejection of s is licensed when the rejector's state is not s-compatible.

                Definition (20).

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Part 3: MI Characterization Theorems #

                  theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.MI_liftProp {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (i : List W) :
                  MI (liftProp p) i wi, p w = true

                  MI for non-epistemic sentences: i ∈ MI(p) iff every world in i satisfies p. Equivalently, i ⊆ ext(p) — the downward closure of the proposition's extension.

                  eqs. (22)–(23).

                  theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.MI_mightSimple {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (i : List W) (hi : i []) :

                  MI for might-p (non-empty states): i ∈ MI(might-p) iff i has a p-world. The universal quantifier in MI collapses because might's truth conditions are insensitive to the evaluation world.

                  eq. (27b): MI(might-p) = { i : i ∩ p ≠ ∅ }.

                  theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.MI_mustSimple {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (i : List W) (hi : i []) :
                  MI (mustSimple p) i wi, p w = true

                  MI for must-p coincides with MI for the bare prejacent. Since must universally quantifies over the same set i that MI quantifies over, the two collapse: MI(must-p) = { i : i ⊆ p }.

                  Appendix A, eq. (58).

                  theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.MI_must_eq_MI_lift {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (i : List W) (hi : i []) :

                  MI(must-p) = MI(p): must has the same meta-intensionalized denotation as a non-epistemic assertion of its prejacent.

                  Part 4: Derived Update Potentials #

                  NSF update for non-epistemic sentences: intersect with proposition. The most conservative refinement of c that lands in MI(liftProp p).

                  eq. (24).

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    NSF update for might-p (simple semantics): consistency test. Leave context unchanged if c has p-worlds; anomaly otherwise.

                    eq. (29).

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      NSF update for must-p (simple semantics): same as non-epistemic.

                      Appendix A, eq. (59).

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        Part 5: Derivation Theorems #

                        theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.context_in_MI_might {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (c : List W) (h : c.any p = true) :

                        If c has p-worlds, it is already in MI(might-p). No refinement needed.

                        Core lemma: subset refinement cannot introduce p-worlds. If c has no p-worlds, no refinement of c does either, making c not-might-p-compatible. This forces anomalous update.

                        This is the key step in deriving Veltman's test semantics from the NSF: the "consistency test" behavior of might falls out of the monotonicity of refinement.

                        NSF derives Veltman's consistency test.

                        Given solipsistic contextualist truth conditions for might and the NSF's assertive machinery, the update potential for might-p is:

                        • c[might-p] = c if c ∩ p ≠ ∅ (test passes)
                        • c[might-p] = ∅ if c ∩ p = ∅ (anomaly)

                        This is exactly @cite{veltman-1996}, derived rather than stipulated. The derivation uses context_in_MI_might (compatible case) and no_p_worlds_not_compatible (incompatible case).

                        Bridges nsfUpdateMight to Update.might from UpdateSemantics.

                        §4.2; cf. @cite{veltman-1996}, @cite{yalcin-2007}.

                        NSF update for must-p equals update for its prejacent. Must-p updates identically to a non-epistemic assertion of p.

                        Appendix A, eq. (59).

                        NSF recovers Stalnaker for non-epistemic sentences.

                        For sentences whose denotation doesn't vary with the information parameter, the NSF update is intersection with the proposition — exactly @cite{stalnaker-1978}'s original formalization.

                        Bridges nsfUpdateNonEpistemic to ContextSet.update from CommonGround: both compute c ∩ p (filter c to p-worlds).

                        Part 6: Rejection Licensing #

                        theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.rejection_nonEpistemic {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (i : List W) :
                        i [] → (rejectionLicensed (liftProp p) i wi, p w = false)

                        Rejection of a non-epistemic assertion of p is licensed iff the rejector has no p-worlds — i.e., the rejector knows ¬p.

                        Rejection of might-p is licensed iff the rejector has no p-worlds. Crucially, this depends on the rejector's information, not the assertor's. The assertor's might-claim can be true (she has p-worlds) while the rejector is licensed to reject (he has none).

                        This predicts @cite{khoo-2015}'s finding that might-claims can be simultaneously not-judged-false and rejected.

                        §4.2.1.

                        Rejection of might-p reduces to having no p-worlds.

                        Part 7: Ordering Semantics (Kratzer bridge) #

                        Epistemic state (ordering version): a modal base (set of worlds) paired with an ordering source (set of propositions ranking those worlds).

                        Definition (43): D_i = { ⟨b_i, o_i⟩ : b_i ∈ D_st ∧ o_i ∈ ℘D_st }

                        Instances For

                          BEST worlds: worlds in the modal base not strictly dominated by any other. A world w is strictly dominated by w' iff w' satisfies a proper superset of the ordering propositions that w satisfies.

                          eq. (44); @cite{kratzer-1981}.

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

                            Ordering semantics for might: ⟦might-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∃w' ∈ BEST_{b_i,o_i}, p(w') = true.

                            eq. (45).

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              MI for ordering-semantic might-p: the set of epistemic states whose BEST worlds include at least one p-world.

                              eq. (54b).

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Refinement (ordering version): only the modal base is refined.

                                Definition (46).

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  NSF update for might-p (ordering semantics): add p to ordering source.

                                  This is the paper's most novel result. Asserting might-p proposes that the prejacent be added as a "live possibility" — a proposition in the ordering source. This makes p-worlds more likely to be among the BEST worlds, yielding an informative (non-trivial) update.

                                  eq. (56).

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For

                                    Adding p to the ordering source cannot make a p-world dominated by a non-p-world, because the non-p-world fails to satisfy p while the p-world satisfies it.

                                    This is the key step in proving the ordering update is commensurate.

                                    Commensurativity: if the modal base has a p-world, adding p to the ordering source yields a state whose BEST worlds include a p-world.

                                    After adding p, no non-p-world can dominate any p-world (nonPWorld_cannot_dominate_pWorld). Among p-worlds, the element with maximum satisfaction count is maximal. Since the base has p-worlds, BEST_{b, A+p} ∩ p ≠ ∅.

                                    §5.3, pp. 77–78.

                                    The ordering update is conservative: adding p to the ordering source does not guarantee that the resulting context will entail anything not already entailed by might-p.

                                    §5.3.

                                    Non-epistemic sentences still get standard intersective update in the ordering version: the ordering source is unchanged.

                                    eq. (52).

                                    Appendix A2: Must on ordering semantics #

                                    Ordering semantics for must: ⟦must-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∀w' ∈ BEST_{b_i,o_i}, p(w') = true.

                                    eq. (60).

                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

                                      MI for ordering-semantic must-p: the set of epistemic states whose BEST worlds are all p-worlds.

                                      eq. (61).

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For

                                        A proposition is p-disjoint iff no world satisfies both it and p.

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For

                                          NSF update for must-p (ordering semantics).

                                          Add p to the ordering source AND remove all p-disjoint propositions. Simply adding p is insufficient: p-disjoint ordering propositions can keep non-p-worlds in BEST. Removing them ensures all BEST worlds satisfy p.

                                          eq. (64).

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

                                            The must ordering update preserves the modal base (when compatible).

                                            Part 8: Relational Semantics Equivalence (Appendix B) #

                                            Relational semantics for might: ⟦might-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∃w' ∈ f_i(w), p(w') = true, where f_i is the epistemic accessibility function determined by i.

                                            eq. (65).

                                            Equations
                                            Instances For

                                              Epistemic closure: f maps every world in i to i itself. Under solipsistic contextualism, the accessibility function for the speaker's epistemic state maps each accessible world to the full epistemic state.

                                              eq. (67).

                                              Equations
                                              Instances For

                                                Under epistemic closure, MI(might-p) on relational semantics is { i : i ∩ p ≠ ∅ } — identical to the domain semantics result.

                                                Proof follows eq. (69a–c):

                                                • If i ∩ p ≠ ∅, then for any w ∈ i, f(w) = i has p-worlds ✓
                                                • If i ∩ p = ∅, then for any w ∈ i, f(w) = i has no p-worlds ✗

                                                Appendix B1, eq. (69c).

                                                Under epistemic closure, MI(must-p) on relational semantics is { i : i ⊆ p } — identical to the domain semantics result.

                                                Appendix B1 (analogous to eq. 69).

                                                B2: Relational ordering semantics #

                                                Relational ordering semantics for might: ⟦might-p⟧ⁱ(w) = true iff ∃w' ∈ BEST_{f_i(w), g_i(w)}, p(w') = true, where g_i maps worlds to ordering sources.

                                                eq. (70).

                                                Equations
                                                Instances For

                                                  Ordering closure: g maps every world in b_i to the same ordering o_i.

                                                  eq. (71).

                                                  Equations
                                                  Instances For

                                                    Under both epistemic and ordering closure, MI(might-p) on the relational ordering semantics equals { i : BEST_{b_i,o_i} has p-world } — identical to the domain ordering result.

                                                    Appendix B2, eq. (73).

                                                    Part 9: Truth ≠ Acceptance #

                                                    theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.nonEpistemic_truth_acceptance_biconditional {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (c_assertor c_rejector : List W) (_h_rej_ne : c_rejector []) (_h_assertor_true : MI (liftProp p) c_assertor) (h_rejector_false : wc_rejector, p w = false) :

                                                    For non-epistemic sentences, truth and rejectability align: if the sentence is false in the rejector's state, rejection is licensed; if true, rejection is not licensed.

                                                    This is the standard biconditional relationship.

                                                    theorem Semantics.Dynamic.NeoStalnakerian.might_truth_acceptance_dissociate {W : Type u_1} (p : BProp W) (c_assertor c_rejector : List W) (h_assertor_has_p : c_assertor.any p = true) (h_rejector_no_p : c_rejector.any p = false) :
                                                    MI (mightSimple p) c_assertor rejectionLicensed (mightSimple p) c_rejector

                                                    For might-claims, truth and rejectability dissociate.

                                                    The assertor's might-claim can be true (she has p-worlds in her epistemic state) while the rejector is simultaneously licensed to reject (he has no p-worlds in his). This is because:

                                                    • Truth depends on the assertor's information parameter
                                                    • Rejection depends on the rejector's information parameter
                                                    • These are different parameters that can diverge

                                                    This predicts the empirical pattern in @cite{khoo-2015}: participants reject might-claims (mean Likert rejection ~5.03) without judging them false (mean Likert falsity ~2.42).

                                                    §4.3, bridging §4.2.1.