Available experiments support some central claims about degree wh-exclamatives, while commentators' further judgments remain conditional evidence whose consequences depend on replication and shared judgments.

Available experiments support some central claims about degree wh-exclamatives, while commentators' further judgments remain conditional evidence whose consequences depend on replication and shared judgments.

• Because central acceptability and denial judgments differ considerably, disputed descriptive and theoretical claims require experimental or corpus support rather than untested introspection alone.
• Based on experimental data from the cited studies, the authors concluded that the descriptive content of degree wh-exclamatives can be denied and that such exclamatives can felicitously answer information-seeking questions.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  the descriptive content also of degree wh-exclamatives can be denied, and that this type of exclamative can also be used as a felicitous response to an information-seeking question.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p3

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  the descriptive content also of degree wh-exclamatives can be denied, and that this type of exclamative can also be used as a felicitous response to an information-seeking question.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p3
• Prominent prior work reported introspective judgments about exclamatives that the authors regard as counter-intuitive and inaccurate.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  the judgment data presented in some of the most prominent works on this topic simply seemed counter-intuitive and not accurate.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p1

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  the judgment data presented in some of the most prominent works on this topic simply seemed counter-intuitive and not accurate.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p1
• Only a small number of studies have experimentally tested recurring and reproduced judgments about exclamations.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  There are only very few studies on exclamations that tested those recurring and reproduced judgments in actual experiments

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p2

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  There are only very few studies on exclamations that tested those recurring and reproduced judgments in actual experiments

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p2
• The authors agree that direct denial after the elliptical forms in (9) is stranger than denial after the non-elliptical forms in (10), but judge weak denial strategies after (9) to be acceptable; whether Esipova shares that judgment remains unknown.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  we do think that the weak denial strategies (which are generally preferred by subjects in analogous judgments; see Trotzke 2019) sound just fine

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p6

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  we do think that the weak denial strategies (which are generally preferred by subjects in analogous judgments; see Trotzke 2019) sound just fine

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p6
• Castroviejo judges that declarative, elliptical exclamative, and non-elliptical emotive-assertion responses are all felicitous both to a question about descriptive content and to one about emotional state; the authors agree with this judgment.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  We agree with her judgment that not only the non-elliptical version in (8d), but also the elliptical version in (8c) as well as the declarative in (8b) would be felicitous responses.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p5

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  We agree with her judgment that not only the non-elliptical version in (8d), but also the elliptical version in (8c) as well as the declarative in (8b) would be felicitous responses.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p5
• The new judgment data offered in the commentaries are largely uncharted territory for empirical study.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  this is all uncharted territory in terms of empirical studies.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p4

  The landscape of exclamations: brief musings on emotive language — Judgment disagreement and the case for experimental evidence

  this is all uncharted territory in terms of empirical studies.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2008#unit-3-p4

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

• Is the literature really agreed that defects of kind K bias inferences in direction B, or is the bias direction itself contested?Open
• Does study S actually have defect D, or is the description of S inaccurate?Open
• Is the expected magnitude of the bias from D large enough to overturn S's reported effect, or is the effect robust to plausible bias corrections?Open
• Has S (or a follow-up study) performed a robustness check or sensitivity analysis that addresses defect D directly?Open
• Is this critique applied consistently — i.e., would it apply to studies on the other side of the debate that share the same defect kind K?Open
• Is H supported by independent studies that do not share defect D, such that S's defect does not undermine H itself?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests