Agree to disagree: on refutational and confirmatory $\textit{too}$
Keywords: semantics, too, refutational too, confirmatory too, response particles, verum focus, dictum focus
TL;DR: I discuss previously overlooked "confirmatory" uses of 'too' (e.g., - We defeated her! - You did, too.) and propose a uniform analysis for both confirmatory and refutational 'too' based on the core semantics of regular 'too'.
Abstract: Most semantics literature on $\textit{too}$ has focused on its uses like in (1) (hf. "regular" $\textit{too}$).
(1) A: Axel likes cats. B: [BROOK]$_F$ likes cats, TOO.
Less often discussed is "refutational" $\textit{too}$, which refutes an antecedent utterance, as in (2).
(2) A: You didn’t do your homework. B: Did too!
Thomas (2023) proposes that refutational $\textit{too}$ is a [REVERSE, +] response particle (in terms of Roelofsen & Farkas 2015), akin to French $\textit{si}$, used in responses with positive prejacents to negative antecedents. He also proposes that refutational $\textit{too}$ has an additional feature, [REFUTE], which "presupposes that the negation of the content of its prejacent is a member of the addressee’s projected discourse commitments".
This paper (i) discusses "confirmatory" $\textit{too}$, which confirms an antecedent utterance; (ii) argues against the response particle analysis of refutational or confirmatory $\textit{too}$; and (iii) proposes instead that both share their core semantics with regular $\textit{too}$, with the main difference being the focus alternatives—alternative projected commitments with respect to a polar issue $p?$ (a subcase or a sibling of verum focus) in refutational $\textit{too}$ cases vs. alternative performances of a speech act making the same projected commitment (a subcase of dictum focus) in confirmatory $\textit{too}$ cases.
Submission Number: 106
Loading