Not-at-Issue Proposals

This paper argues that not-at-issue contents are best analyzed as proposals—similarly, but not identical to, assertions of at-issue contents. This view is justified on theoretical as well as empirical grounds. From a theoretical perspective, we argue that standard accounts of how not-at-issue contents relate to the common ground give rise to significant problems. Empirically, we show that discourse particles such as the German unstressed doch and Italian mica can be used to reject both at-issue and not-at-issue information. Furthermore, Bavarian fei is specialized for challenging not-at-issue material. To account for data like this, we develop a Split Table model that represents at-issue and not-at-issue contents as distinct proposal types with similar yet different properties. This directly derives the differences in the challengeability of at-issue and not-at-issue contents: standard response particles access only at-issue; discourse particles like doch and mica can target both; and fei operates exclusively on not-at-issue proposals. Our analysis thus provides a unified account of how different content types are proposed, negotiated, and accommodated in conversation.