Argument·Paper reconstruction — Maria Esipova (2025), In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force
Conclusion
Expression of affect is distinct from assertion of affect: expressive acts are non-truth-based, unlike truth-conditional attitude assertions.
View claim pageArgument
Expression of affect is distinct from assertion of affect: expressive acts are non-truth-based, unlike truth-conditional attitude assertions.
⟨ ⟩Classification/Definition
Premises (7)
- 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 viewthey argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitudehttps://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthey argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitudehttps://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthey argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitudehttps://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 viewthe 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-p6In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthe 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-p6In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthe 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 viewexpressing one’s feelings versus talking about themhttps://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewexpressing one’s feelings versus talking about themhttps://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewexpressing one’s feelings versus talking about themhttps://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 viewtowards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewtowards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewtowards 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 viewnon-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-p4In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewnon-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-p4In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewnon-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 viewthese 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-p3In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthese 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-p3In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard viewthese 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
Challenges & responses (0)
No one has tested this argument yet.
An unopposed argument is untested, not proven. Filing a rebut, undercut, or undermine is how its standing gets earned.
Answered critical questions (1)
Critical questions are the challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must withstand.
- Does the case fit the category?Answer
The paper characterizes expressive speech acts as non-truth-based expressions of affect, distinguishing them from affect-related truth-conditional meanings. It further contrasts non-truth-evaluable expressive utterances with attitude assertions that can be true or false. 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.
Cited by
Cited by 1 · 0 contests
Builds on this (1)
Contests this (0)
No contest on file yet.
Embed this argument
<iframe src="https://www.isonomia.app/embed/argument/r410GGE4" width="600" height="400" frameborder="0" style="border:1px solid #e5e7eb;border-radius:8px;" title="Isonomia Argument" loading="lazy"></iframe>
Copy and paste into any website or forum that supports HTML.
Join the deliberation on Isonomia
Support, challenge, or extend this argument with structured reasoning in Isonomia.