The rival view claims that exclamatives, declarative exclamations, and explicit attitude reports are semantically equivalent with respect to the speaker's attitude toward presupposed high-degree content.

The rival view claims that exclamatives, declarative exclamations, and explicit attitude reports are semantically equivalent with respect to the speaker's attitude toward presupposed high-degree content.

• 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 view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude

  https://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 view

  the 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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the 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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the 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 view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p5

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  expressing one’s feelings versus talking about them

  https://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 view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2
• The standard view assigns the high-degree/speaker-belief component different discourse statuses in exclamatives and declarative exclamations: it is presupposed in the former and asserted in the latter.
  Evidence for this premise (1)

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  the “standard” view predicts that it is asserted in (1b) and presupposed in (1a)

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p7
• 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 view

  non-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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  non-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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  non-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 view

  these 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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  these 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

  In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force — Statement of the dispute and defense of a specific standard view

  these 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

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

• What record shows that a actually incurred the commitment to A — is the quotation or move accurate, complete, and in context?
  Answer

  The paper identifies TG's disputed position as semantic equivalence among exclamatives, declarative exclamations, and explicit attitude reports, including both at-issue and presupposed content. Paper basis — "they argue that in all three cases, the speaker asserts a proposition about their attitude" (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 2). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p1
• Is B really the same proposition as A, or genuinely entailed by it — or does the attribution trade on paraphrase, translation, or equivocation?
  Answer

  The paper specifies the proposition attributed to all three utterance types as concerning the speaker's attitude toward the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree. Paper basis — "towards the presupposed proposition that Anya is smart to a high degree." (In search of an exclamatory illocutionary force, p. 2). Reconstructed from Maria Esipova (2025); machine-drafted from the paper, filed for review.

  https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2025-2007#unit-1-p2

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

• Is there a plausible alternative reading of R under which a is not committed to A?Open
• Has a retracted, revised, or superseded the commitment to A (a later move, edition, or passage)?Open
• Was the commitment incurred in a context (dialogue type, work, period, supposition, or bracketed attitude) from which it cannot legitimately be carried to the present issue?Open
• Does a hold stronger explicit commitments to the contrary that outweigh the attributed one within a's position?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests