Those favorable cases are better characterized as narrative replies, so they do not support the claim that exclamatives can answer information-seeking questions in the narrow sense.

Those favorable cases are better characterized as narrative replies, so they do not support the claim that exclamatives can answer information-seeking questions in the narrow sense.

• The cases TaG treats as exclamatives answering questions occur after broad tell-me or performance prompts, rather than as direct answers to specifically information-seeking questions.
• “Erzähl mal”/“tell me” opens a broad narrative range of possible replies; it does not require an answer in the narrow sense.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  No answer in a narrow sense is required, but varying kinds of narrative responses are possible

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p4

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  No answer in a narrow sense is required, but varying kinds of narrative responses are possible

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p4
• Exclamative sentences cannot function as direct answers: the exclamative response in (16B') is unacceptable to the direct question “How fast was Eliud Kipchoge?”
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  Exclamative sentences cannot function as direct answers

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p2

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  Exclamative sentences cannot function as direct answers

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p2
• Although an exclamative response such as (17B) may be suitable after “Erzähl mal” (“Tell me”), its acceptability may vary and it is not obvious that this prompt counts as a question.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  the main problem seems to be that it is not obvious in which sense (17A) counts as a question

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p3

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  the main problem seems to be that it is not obvious in which sense (17A) counts as a question

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p3
• TaG's modified prompt “Tell me, how did Eliud Kipchoge do in the race?” is not a question specifically about Kipchoge's speed, but an unspecific request for information about his performance.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  (18A) no longer refers to Eliud Kipchoge ’ s speed in a question but is an unspecific request to tell something about how he has been performing

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p5

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  (18A) no longer refers to Eliud Kipchoge ’ s speed in a question but is an unspecific request to tell something about how he has been performing

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p5
• TaG use “answer” broadly, covering both direct answers to information-seeking questions and indirect dialogue moves based on pragmatic inference or implicature.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  think of ‘ answer ’ as encompassing direct answers to information-seeking questions but also other answering strategies via more indirect moves in a dialogue

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p1

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  think of ‘ answer ’ as encompassing direct answers to information-seeking questions but also other answering strategies via more indirect moves in a dialogue

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p1
• This unspecific request can be met by many narratives, including “My god, he won!”, “He didn’t make it to the finish line,” and “He didn’t look really happy and his shoes were wet”; hence it is unsurprising that an exclamative also seems to work.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  This request can be matched by all sorts of different narratives telling something about Eliud Kipchoge in the race

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p6

  Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood — Answerhood evidence and the distinction between answers and narrative replies

  This request can be matched by all sorts of different narratives telling something about Eliud Kipchoge in the race

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p6

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

• Is the context one where this definition appropriately applies?
  Answer

  The paper explains that the broad performance request can be met by multiple narratives, including replies about winning, not finishing, or appearance. It therefore treats an exclamative's acceptability in that setting as unsurprising without treating it as a direct answer to a narrow information-seeking question. Paper basis — "This request can be matched by all sorts of different narratives telling something about Eliud Kipchoge in the race" (Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood, p. 7). Reconstructed from Robert Wilhelmy et al. (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p6

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

• Does a really have all the properties F₁, F₂, ... Fₙ listed?Answer under review
  Draft answer

  The paper characterizes TaG's modified performance prompt as an unspecific request for information rather than a question specifically about speed. It supports the narrative-reply characterization by noting that many different narratives can meet the prompt. Paper basis — "(18A) no longer refers to Eliud Kipchoge ’ s speed in a question but is an unspecific request to tell something about how he has been performing" (Exclamatives, deniability, and answerhood, p. 7). Reconstructed from Robert Wilhelmy et al. (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2006#unit-3-p5
• Is the definition of G acceptable and authoritative?Open
• Is the definition stipulative, lexical, or precising?Open
• Are the defining properties necessary for G?Open
• Are the defining properties F₁, F₂, ... Fₙ sufficient for G?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests