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.

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.

• Wh-exclamatives are expressive degree intensification rather than an operator over propositions, which accounts for their requirement of extreme degrees.
• 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.

• Does study S actually have defect D, or is the description of S inaccurate?
  Answer

  The paper argues that both TG's and the standard account treat exclamatives' descriptive truth-conditional content as presupposed and therefore predict the same direct-deniability pattern. It also argues that simple No/Nah-plus-correction is not a general diagnostic for whether content is at issue. Paper basis — "both approaches actually make the same predictions" (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-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
• 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