Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Dialogue.Brandom

@cite{brandom-1994}: Scorekeeping Model of Assertion #

@cite{brandom-1994} @cite{brandom-1983}Models assertion as a move in a normative scorekeeping game. Each participant tracks a "scorecard" for every other participant, recording two kinds of normative status:

The key insight: entitlements have no analog in Stalnaker's model. A speaker can be committed to p without being entitled to p (assertion without adequate grounds) or entitled to p without being committed (possessing evidence but not having asserted).

Scorekeeping #

Each agent keeps a score for every other agent. Scores can DISAGREE: agent A might attribute commitment-to-p to agent B, while agent C does not. This means there is no single "common ground" — only an approximation derived from scorecard intersection.

Inferential Closure #

If an agent is committed to p and p→q, they are inferentially committed to q (even if they haven't explicitly asserted q). This is Brandom's "material inference" — the content of a claim is determined by its inferential role.

structure Dialogue.Brandom.NormativeStatus (W : Type u_1) :
Type u_1

The normative status attributed to an agent by a scorekeeper.

Brandom's central innovation: the deontic score has two independent dimensions. An agent can be committed-but-not-entitled (asserted without grounds), entitled-but-not-committed (has evidence, hasn't asserted), or both (well-grounded assertion).

Instances For

    Empty normative status: no commitments, no entitlements.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Add a commitment (the agent publicly commits to p).

      Equations
      Instances For

        Add an entitlement (the agent has grounds for p).

        Equations
        Instances For

          Agent type for the scorekeeping model.

          Instances For
            @[implicit_reducible]
            Equations
            def Dialogue.Brandom.instReprBAgent.repr :
            BAgentStd.Format
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              structure Dialogue.Brandom.Scorecard (W : Type u_1) :
              Type u_1

              A scorecard: what one agent attributes to another.

              card a b is agent a's attribution of normative status to agent b. Crucially, card a b can differ from card c b — scorekeepers can disagree about what another agent is committed/entitled to.

              Instances For

                Initial scorecard: everyone attributes empty status to everyone.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Get a specific agent's view of another agent's commitments.

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    Get a specific agent's view of another agent's entitlements.

                    Equations
                    Instances For
                      structure Dialogue.Brandom.BrandomState (W : Type u_1) :
                      Type u_1

                      Brandom's discourse state: a scorecard tracking all agent attributions.

                      • scorecard : Scorecard W

                        The scorecard recording normative status attributions

                      Instances For

                        Initial state: empty scorecard.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Assert: the speaker undertakes a commitment and authorizes the addressee to re-assert.

                          @cite{brandom-1994}: asserting p has two effects:

                          1. The speaker undertakes commitment to p
                          2. The speaker authorizes others to re-assert p (default entitlement)
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Effective context set: intersection of all attributed commitments.

                            This is a LOSSY projection from Brandom → Stalnaker. Brandom's model has strictly more structure (entitlements, disagreement between scorekeepers), but for the AssertionTheory interface we need a single ContextSet.

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

                              Stability: the state is stable when all commitments have matching entitlements (no ungrounded assertions).

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For
                                structure Dialogue.Brandom.Challenge (W : Type u_1) :
                                Type u_1

                                A challenge: the addressee demands reasons for a commitment.

                                @cite{brandom-1994}: challenges shift the burden of proof. If the speaker cannot provide entitlement for a commitment, the commitment is defeated (withdrawn from the scorecard).

                                • challenger : BAgent

                                  Who issues the challenge

                                • proposition : Set W

                                  The proposition challenged

                                Instances For

                                  Inferential closure: if committed to p and p→q, committed to q.

                                  Brandom's "material inference" — the content of a concept is its inferential role, not its reference. An agent's commitments are closed under their acknowledged inferential connections.

                                  TODO: full closure requires a fixpoint computation.

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

                                    Scorekeepers can disagree: agent A's view of B's status can differ from agent C's view of B's status.

                                    Witnessed by a scorecard where the speaker attributes a commitment to the addressee, but the addressee does not self-attribute it.

                                    @[implicit_reducible]

                                    Brandom states project to a context set via effectiveContextSet (the lossy Brandom → Stalnaker projection: intersection of all self-attributed commitments). The lossy projection is the price of the typeclass — Brandom's per-scorekeeper disagreement is invisible at the HasContextSet API level (cf. scorekeepers_can_disagree).

                                    Equations