{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018842530282637954, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.642857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Incompatibility, Modal Semantics, and Intrinsic Logic

I closed my lecture last week with an argument building on the idea that every autonomous discursive practice, in order to count as a discursive or linguistic practice, in order to count as deploying any vocabulary, must include performances that have the pragmatic significance of assertions, which on the syntactic side are utterances of declarative sentences, and whose semantic content consists of propositions. These pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic conditions form an indissoluble package in the sense that one cannot properly understand any of the concepts assertion, sentence, and proposition apart from their relation to each other. This is the iron triangle of discursiveness: