Resumen de In defense of assertion
Herman Cappelen has recently argued in favor of what he calls �the no assertion view�, where the putative speech act is replaced with Paul Grice�s category of �sayings�. To make his case, Cappelen produces four arguments against Timothy Williamson�s normative view of assertion, holding that the same arguments can be used mutatis mutandis against other non-normative views of assertion. In this paper I examine all four of Cappelen�s arguments against normative theories of assertion, and conclude that they fail.
