Tarski’s Semantic Theory of Truth is best known for its formulation of truth in formal languages, where a statement is true if it can be mapped onto a model that interprets it accurately. It relates to the Correspondence Theory in its emphasis on the relationship between language and the world. However, unlike the Correspondence Theory, which often deals with truth in natural language, Tarski's approach applies primarily to formal languages with well-defined semantics. Tarski's theory avoids some of the ambiguities and paradoxes found in natural language by requiring a meta-language for truth attribution, thus allowing for a more precise discussion of truth. It offers a foundation for the formal justification of mathematical and logical statements by providing clear criteria for assessing their truth values.

The Verificationist Theory of Truth posits that a statement is only meaningful if it can be definitively verified or falsified through experience or logic. This theory is most closely associated with the logical positivist movement. It diverges from the Coherence Theory by rejecting the idea of truth as an internal consistency within a system of beliefs. In contrast to the Correspondence Theory, verificationism doesn't necessitate an objective correspondence with the world; instead, it requires a potential method of verification. Pragmatism shares some common ground with verificationism in that both consider the practical outcomes of a statement, but pragmatism is less stringent, not requiring strict verification but rather focusing on usefulness and practical consequences.

The pragmatic maxim suggests that the meaning of a concept or proposition lies in its practical effects. A critique of this approach in the context of truth and justification is that it might conflate truth with utility, implying that what is useful is equivalent to what is true. This can be problematic because certain beliefs could lead to successful outcomes without actually being true. Additionally, practical consequences are often context-dependent, which can lead to relativism or subjective truth, undermining the objective nature of truth that other theories, like correspondence, strive to maintain. Furthermore, critics argue that the pragmatic maxim does not account for long-term outcomes and indirect consequences, which can be significant when assessing the truth of a belief.

A 'warrant' in epistemology refers to the justification that connects a person's belief to its truth, allowing them to claim knowledge. It involves the evidence or reasoning that justifies the belief's truthfulness. In the context of the Coherence Theory, a warrant would consist of a belief's coherence with a web of other beliefs. For the Correspondence Theory, a warrant would involve evidence that a belief accurately reflects reality. With Pragmatism, the warrant might be the successful application of the belief in practice. Thus, the concept of a warrant is integral to all theories of truth as it provides the necessary link between belief and truth that is required for a claim to attain the status of knowledge. Each theory of truth offers a different perspective on what constitutes a valid warrant, thus influencing how knowledge claims are justified within each framework.

The Deflationary Theory of Truth, also known as the "disquotational" theory, posits that asserting a statement is true is the same as asserting the statement itself. For example, saying "It is true that snow is white" is the same as saying "Snow is white". Unlike the Correspondence Theory, which seeks a relation between propositions and the world, and the Coherence Theory, which requires a network of consistent beliefs, the Deflationary Theory suggests that the notion of truth is not a substantial property but merely a linguistic convenience. It simplifies the concept of truth to a tool of endorsement, avoiding deeper metaphysical implications, which can be seen as both a strength in its parsimony and a weakness in its avoidance of engagement with the nature of reality.