Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Pragmatics — language in use — speech acts and illocutionary force, assertion and common ground, presupposition, dynamic and update semantics, footing and stance in discourse, and probabilistic models of speakers and listeners (rational speech acts); what an utterance does, beyond what it says (ADR-034).
10 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-031 v5 | When does a chosen family of observational probes separate the communicative realizations a task needs told apart, and when does it collapse distinct ones, beyond the cases in which the task’s target and the probes’ outcome laws are linear in one state? | A173’s secondary question (“When do restricted probes separate communicative realizations?”), v7’s RQ3 (A178) and A214 §3. It is the open half of CLAIM-142: observational equivalence is relative to the probes, so how rich must the probes be? The discrete case has exact answers, and so does a metric-enriched one. The stochastic, decision-relative version is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-073 | Are teasing and reproach individuated by the speaker’s communicative intention, or partly by a frame the parties sustain together and by their standing? | Raised by CLAIM-221 and CLAIM-224 on 2026-10-10. Intention-based accounts of illocution (Grice; Strawson 1964; Bach and Harnish 1979) plausibly individuate teasing by the speaker’s intention. Goffman’s account of keying a play frame and Austin’s securing of uptake (LIT-785, unread) are the tradition’s replies. None of these is read here. An answer would read them and find a case in which the speaker’s intention is held fixed and the act verdicts of informed participants change with the parties’ standing or uptake. | Open |
| QUESTION-076 | Can readers judge footing and stance reliably and validly in the categories the designs use? | Raised by CLAIM-227 on 2026-10-10. The only footing judgement the record has made twice of the same texts, the analyst’s own labelling of four refrains, changed between A38 and A39 (CASE-012). An answer reports reliability between judges and between passes against a target fixed in advance, and validity on renderings built to differ only in the attributed speaker. Stage 0 of CASE-055 is the design. Goffman’s “Footing” (in LIT-780) is the construct’s source and is unread here. | Open |
| QUESTION-096 | When does a communicative cue change what an interpreter can recover from an unchanged internal state, and how can such an addressing effect be told apart from new information, added computation or a changed policy? | A19’s question, after the owner tied the represented / recoverable / actionable distinction to QKV attention and Kanerva’s sparse distributed memory at U19. The record already holds that attention approximates SDM (LIT-269). | Open |
| QUESTION-106 | Can a textual instruction, a retrieved structured record and an activation intervention preserve the same pragmatic obligations across context shifts, judged on the decisions that matter and not on outputs or embeddings? | A3’s question C. It asks CLAIM-050’s question of three conditioning mechanisms instead of two renderings. Its example obligation is the record’s own: describing a rejected claim without endorsing it. | Open |
| QUESTION-111 | Which communicative distinctions remain recoverable by a bounded interpreter after a rendering, and how does the cost of recovering them change under framing? | A15 §8’s fifth recommendation, with A14 §1’s three failure modes: information loss, computational inaccessibility, representational mismatch. CLAIM-199 separates Blackwell’s ceiling from a receiver’s usable information. This asks how a budget, rather than a fixed rule class, moves that line. | Open |
| QUESTION-167 | Do word learners reason about an informative speaker, or only apply the size principle, when displays are built so that the two predict different bets? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 025, ADR-047 v3) narrowed and promoted THEORY-472 to its derivation and to what Frank, Goodman, Lai and Tenenbaum measured. In their displays the informative-speaker learner and a plain size-principle learner coincide by construction, so the bets (r = .93) fit both. THEORY-472’s former promote_when, which asks for a discriminating experiment, moves here unchanged. It bears on THEORY-172, the listener-side account that extends THEORY-472. | Open |
| QUESTION-209 | Do listeners in reference and signalling games invert an informative speaker when alternatives and costs are manipulated with the uttered form held fixed, the model’s parameters are set in advance, and its predictions are tested on trial-level data against a literal listener and a likelihood-only model? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-172. THEORY-172 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v3) on what was measured: in Frank and Goodman’s reference games listeners’ mean bets matched a parameter-free inverted informative speaker with a measured salience prior, and in Bergen, Goodman and Levy’s signalling games listeners read a novel signal by its alternative. The evidence is a fit of condition means with no rival model fitted. | Open |
| QUESTION-339 | In a random sample of English-source human translations drawn without a named-entity or alignment filter, annotated by at least two annotators with agreement per category reported, how often per sentence does each language’s translation add material for the target audience, and are measurement and entity explicitations the most frequent types? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1153, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. PETra’s counts are within a filtered, mostly classifier-found pool labelled by one annotator; this asks for the base rate. | Open |
| QUESTION-355 | Measured against the agreement between two or more native raters scoring the same translations, how close does a reference-based metric such as COMET come to that ceiling in scoring the pragmatic adequacy of LLM translations of culturally loaded utterances into English, per pragmatic phenomenon, on items chosen in advance? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1120, moved here when the twenty-fourth status review narrowed and promoted it (ADR-065 §3). With one rater per language, r = 0.81 has no ceiling to be read against. | Open |