The infelicity of direct emotional-state denial and the relative failure of exclamatives to answer direct questions about feelings distinguish them from overt emotive assertions.

The infelicity of direct emotional-state denial and the relative failure of exclamatives to answer direct questions about feelings distinguish them from overt emotive assertions.

• TG's denial and question-addressing tests do not establish that exclamatives' affect-related content is truth-conditional and at issue, since the relevant truth-conditional content is predicted to be presupposed on both accounts and question coherence is not itself assertion evidence.
• The contrast in denial behavior cannot be explained merely by the claim that emotional states cannot be denied, since one can accuse someone of pretending after expressive acts but not of lying or saying something false.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  you can accuse one of pretending in response to expressive speech acts

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p3

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  you can accuse one of pretending in response to expressive speech acts

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p3

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  you can accuse one of pretending in response to expressive speech acts

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p3
• TG treat affect-related content in exclamatives and declarative exclamations as asserted, but direct denials of speakers' emotional states are infelicitous after those utterances, whereas such denials are felicitous after overt assertions with amazed or surprised.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the speaker ’s “ emotional state ” can very well be denied in response to assertions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the speaker ’s “ emotional state ” can very well be denied in response to assertions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the speaker ’s “ emotional state ” can very well be denied in response to assertions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p2
• On the standard view, an exclamative's affect-related component is non-truth-conditional and its truth-conditional content is presupposed; therefore neither has the discourse behavior of ordinary at-issue asserted content.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the expressive part itself is non-truth-conditional

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the expressive part itself is non-truth-conditional

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  the expressive part itself is non-truth-conditional

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p1
• Question-answer coherence is not by itself evidence that an utterance addresses a question: rhetorical questions and expressive reactions can be coherent responses while not asserting a proposition that addresses the question.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  there are various ways to react to questions that would likely be judged coherent/felicitous by many speakers that do not actually address the question

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  there are various ways to react to questions that would likely be judged coherent/felicitous by many speakers that do not actually address the question

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  there are various ways to react to questions that would likely be judged coherent/felicitous by many speakers that do not actually address the question

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p5
• Both TG's account and the standard account treat exclamatives' descriptive/truth-conditional content as presupposed, so they make the same predictions about its direct deniability; simple No/Nah plus correction is a general-purpose denial form that can target at least some presuppositions.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  both approaches actually make the same predictions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p4

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  both approaches actually make the same predictions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p4

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  both approaches actually make the same predictions

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p4
• In a direct question about the speaker's feelings, an overt emotive assertion is substantially better than an exclamative or declarative exclamation, contrary to TG's prediction that they are equivalent.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  I still do get a pretty strong contrast between (16B) and (16B ′ )

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p6

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  I still do get a pretty strong contrast between (16B) and (16B ′ )

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p6

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Discourse behavior: denials, question-addressing, and embedding

  I still do get a pretty strong contrast between (16B) and (16B ′ )

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p6

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

• Are there other events or causes that could account for the presence of the sign?
  Answer

  The paper considers and rejects the explanation that the contrast follows merely because emotional states cannot be denied. It notes that expressive acts can invite accusations of pretending, but not accusations of lying or saying something false. Paper basis — "you can accuse one of pretending in response to expressive speech acts" (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 11). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p3
• What is the strength of the correlation between the sign and the event/state it is taken to indicate?
  Answer

  The paper reports a qualitative contrast: direct denial of a speaker's emotional state is infelicitous after exclamatives and declarative exclamations, but felicitous after overt emotive assertions. It presents this contrast, together with the direct-question contrast, as evidence of a distinction rather than a quantified correlation. Paper basis — "the speaker ’s “ emotional state ” can very well be denied in response to assertions" (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 11). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-3-p2

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

• Has the sign actually been observed reliably in this case?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests