The noncancellability of origo orientation and its shift with illocutionary responsibility in free indirect discourse further favor demonstrations over silent emotive assertions.

The noncancellability of origo orientation and its shift with illocutionary responsibility in free indirect discourse further favor demonstrations over silent emotive assertions.

• Exclamative attitude is obligatorily oriented to the utterance origo, a fact directly predicted by a demonstration account but not directly predicted by an account that predicates emotion of a subject.
• Exclamative emotive attitude is bound to the utterance's speaker, time, and place (the origo).
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  It is characteristic of the emotive attitude in exclamations that it is bound to the speaker, to the time, and to the place of the utterance, in short, to its origo.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p1

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  It is characteristic of the emotive attitude in exclamations that it is bound to the speaker, to the time, and to the place of the utterance, in short, to its origo.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p1

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  It is characteristic of the emotive attitude in exclamations that it is bound to the speaker, to the time, and to the place of the utterance, in short, to its origo.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p1
• On the emotive-assertion account, an emotion is predicated of a subject and could in principle be attributed to any subject, time, or place; thus origo orientation does not follow directly.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  The emotive attitude would hinge on a regular predication of a subject

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p3

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  The emotive attitude would hinge on a regular predication of a subject

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p3

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  The emotive attitude would hinge on a regular predication of a subject

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p3
• The demonstration-of-emotions account derives this origo orientation directly, because demonstrations are tied to their performer and to the performance's time and place.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  This orientation toward the origo follows for free from the assumption that exclamations are demonstrations of emotions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p2

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  This orientation toward the origo follows for free from the assumption that exclamations are demonstrations of emotions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p2

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  This orientation toward the origo follows for free from the assumption that exclamations are demonstrations of emotions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p2
• In free indirect discourse, example (21a) is interpreted as Adam expressing surprise at his own time and place, despite preterite tense and third-person pronouns.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  So the origo shifts to Adam and his time and place despite the use of preterit tenses and 3rd person pronouns.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p6

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  So the origo shifts to Adam and his time and place despite the use of preterit tenses and 3rd person pronouns.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p6

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  So the origo shifts to Adam and his time and place despite the use of preterit tenses and 3rd person pronouns.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p6
• Origo orientation does not behave like a cancellable implicature: in example (20c), a context that should force a [-origo] interpretation makes the exclamative completely impossible.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  the putative implicature cannot be canceled by an appropriate context

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p5

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  the putative implicature cannot be canceled by an appropriate context

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p5

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  the putative implicature cannot be canceled by an appropriate context

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p5
• Trotzke and Giannakidou's proposed pragmatic implicature account of origo orientation lacks independently supported theoretical assumptions, including unspecified origo features on silent subjects and apparently verbs, and an explanation of why [+ origo] is unmarked.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  I am unsure about the relevant theoretical underpinnings.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p4

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  I am unsure about the relevant theoretical underpinnings.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p4

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Origo dependence, free indirect discourse, and the nature of exclamative attitude

  I am unsure about the relevant theoretical underpinnings.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-5-p4

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Is there a plausible alternative hypothesis that has not been considered or that would explain the facts at least as well?Open
• Could the facts be jointly explained by a conjunction of weaker causes rather than a single dominant H?Open
• Could the body of facts F itself be an artifact of selection, measurement, or reporting bias rather than a real phenomenon needing causal explanation?Open
• Does H actually explain the full body of facts F, or only a salient subset?Open
• Are the criteria used to judge H 'best' (scope, simplicity, mechanism, prior probability) appropriate for this domain, and are they applied consistently across the alternatives?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests