Accordingly, true exclamatives primarily express affect, while declarative exclamations primarily assert propositional content with a side expressive contribution and overt attitude declaratives assert attitudes.

Accordingly, true exclamatives primarily express affect, while declarative exclamations primarily assert propositional content with a side expressive contribution and overt attitude declaratives assert attitudes.

• TG's disputed position is that exclamatives, declarative exclamations, and explicit attitude reports are semantically equivalent, including in at-issue and presupposed content.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1
• Expressive utterances such as “Ouch!”, “Damn!”, and “Wow!” are not intuitively true or false, unlike assertions such as “I am frustrated” or “I am surprised.”
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the utterances in (2a) cannot be intuitively thought about in terms of something that can be true or false while those in (2b) can.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p6

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the utterances in (2a) cannot be intuitively thought about in terms of something that can be true or false while those in (2b) can.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p6

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the utterances in (2a) cannot be intuitively thought about in terms of something that can be true or false while those in (2b) can.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p6
• The relevant contrast is between expressing one's feelings and asserting factual information about them.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5
• The specific proposition TG attribute to all three utterance types concerns the speaker's attitude toward the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2
• Expressive speech acts are non-truth-based expressions of affect, rather than merely any affect-related meaning.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  non-truth-based expression of affect – and not just as any kind of affect-related meaning.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p4

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  non-truth-based expression of affect – and not just as any kind of affect-related meaning.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p4

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  non-truth-based expression of affect – and not just as any kind of affect-related meaning.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p4
• The standard view predicts a discourse contrast because the affect-related component in exclamatives and declarative exclamations is expressive, whereas in explicit attitude declaratives it is truth-conditional.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  these contrasts are expected because of the expressive nature of the affect-related component in (1a) and (1b)

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p3

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  these contrasts are expected because of the expressive nature of the affect-related component in (1a) and (1b)

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p3

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  these contrasts are expected because of the expressive nature of the affect-related component in (1a) and (1b)

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p3
• Expression of affect is distinct from assertion of affect: expressive acts are non-truth-based, unlike truth-conditional attitude assertions.

Critical questions are the challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must withstand.

• Is the verbal classification in the major premise acceptable?
  Answer

  The paper supports the expressive/assertive classification by defining expressive speech acts as non-truth-based expressions of affect, rather than merely affect-related meanings. Paper basis — "non-truth-based expression of affect – and not just as any kind of affect-related meaning." (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 3). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p4
• Does a definitely have property F, or is there room for doubt?
  Answer

  The paper assigns different discourse statuses to the affect-related component: it is expressive in exclamatives and declarative exclamations, but truth-conditional in explicit attitude declaratives. Paper basis — "these contrasts are expected because of the expressive nature of the affect-related component in (1a) and (1b)" (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 2). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p3

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

• Are there alternative classifications that might apply?Open
• Is the boundary of the classification category clear?Open
• Are there exceptional circumstances in this case that would prevent the classification from holding?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests