At-issueness != anaphoric availability

Abstract

Abstract. The at-issue status of a proposition and its availability for anaphora have been tightly linked in the literature (e.g., Tonhauser 2012; Syrett & Koev 2014). In particular, a frequently used diagnostic for at-issueness crucially relies on propositional anaphora. I argue that two different QUD-based diagnostics from Tonhauser 2012-which do not rely on anaphora-more reliably identify at-issueness. I use these diagnostics to show that neither at-issueness nor availability for anaphora reliably determine one another.

Expressing belief with evidentials: A case study with Cuzco Quechua on the dispensability of illocutionary explanation

“…This perspective stands in stark contrast toSnider (2017) who argues that the anaphoric availability of propositions does not characterize at-issue content. A response to Snider cannot be provided here.…”

What the metasemantics of know is not

“…For brevity's sake, I do not complicate discussion by introducing the atissue/not-at-issue distinction. See Simons et al (2010), Murray (2014), Syrett and Koev (2015), Hunter andAsher (2016), andFrazier et al (2018) for di ering theories of the distinction and Tonhauser (2012) and Snider (2017) for discussion of diagnostics. It is worth noting that the examples used to motivate the -based solution to the psst problem are all ones in which the object of knowledge is at-issue.…”

Evidentiality, Modality, and Speech Acts

“…Direct challenges involve propositional anaphors(yes, no, that), so this diagnostic also concerns what is available for anaphoric reference (see alsoMurray 2010;Snider 2017Snider , 2018. Though not directly challengeable, the evidential content can still be indirectly challenged with other follow-ups, such as Who said that?…”