Question–answer examples are nondiagnostic because an exclamative can demonstrate surprise and thereby indirectly convey relevant information, while an emotive assertion also accesses the relevant information only indirectly through its embedded content.

Question–answer examples are nondiagnostic because an exclamative can demonstrate surprise and thereby indirectly convey relevant information, while an emotive assertion also accesses the relevant information only indirectly through its embedded content.

• The shared effects make the equation initially plausible, but they do not by themselves show that exclamatives and emotive assertions are structurally or functionally identical.
• Therefore, examples such as (3) do not discriminate between an attitude demonstration and an assertion of that attitude.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  examples such as (3) do not distinguish between the demonstration of an attitude and its assertion.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p4

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  examples such as (3) do not distinguish between the demonstration of an attitude and its assertion.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p4

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  examples such as (3) do not distinguish between the demonstration of an attitude and its assertion.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p4
• The emotive-assertion account likewise accesses information about performance indirectly, because performance quality is only embedded information under its assumed silent emotive predicate.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the quality of Eliud ’ s performance is merely an embedded piece of information.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p3

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the quality of Eliud ’ s performance is merely an embedded piece of information.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p3

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the quality of Eliud ’ s performance is merely an embedded piece of information.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p3
• Likewise, the answer in (2b) may be possible because an addressee's demonstration of surprise can let the questioner know which attitude the addressee has.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  by demonstrating surprise, the addressee can let the questioner know that he is surprised.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p5

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  by demonstrating surprise, the addressee can let the questioner know that he is surprised.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p5

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  by demonstrating surprise, the addressee can let the questioner know that he is surprised.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p5
• On the alternative analysis, exclamatives demonstrate attitudes toward states of affairs rather than assert corresponding attitudes.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  exclamatives convey demonstrations of attitudes toward a state of a ff airs instead of corresponding assertions.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p1

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  exclamatives convey demonstrations of attitudes toward a state of a ff airs instead of corresponding assertions.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p1

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  exclamatives convey demonstrations of attitudes toward a state of a ff airs instead of corresponding assertions.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p1
• The author's judgment is that answering by demonstration is marked and only felicitous when the question is understood relatively loosely, as with the how-question combined with think.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  answering by demonstration is a marked strategy that addresses the given question in an indirect way.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p6

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  answering by demonstration is a marked strategy that addresses the given question in an indirect way.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p6

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  answering by demonstration is a marked strategy that addresses the given question in an indirect way.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p6
• In the broad information-seeking question in (3), demonstrating surprise at Eliud's speed can indirectly inform the questioner about the quality of his performance.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the demonstration of surprise at Eliud ’ s speed is an indirect source for information about the quality of his performance.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p2

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the demonstration of surprise at Eliud ’ s speed is an indirect source for information about the quality of his performance.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p2

  Empirical and theoretical arguments against equating exclamatives and emotive assertions — Question–answer behavior does not establish assertive identity

  the demonstration of surprise at Eliud ’ s speed is an indirect source for information about the quality of his performance.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2001#unit-2-p2

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