Agree to disagree: additive particles in responses

Abstract

Most literature on too has focused on its "regular" uses, where, as a first approximation, too triggers a presupposition that one of the focus alternatives to its prejacent, distinct from the prejacent itself, is true (e.g., Axel likes cats. BROOK likes cats, too.). There has also been some discussion of "refutational too", used in positive polarity responses that refute the antecedent utterance (e.g., A: You didn't do your homework. B: I did too!). Recently, Thomas (2023) proposed that refutational too is a response particle, akin to yes and no—or even more pertinently, to French si and German doch. In this paper, I present novel data on what I will call "confirmatory too", which is used in positive polarity responses that confirm the antecedent utterance (e.g., A: It’s hot. B: It is too.), as well as some additional data on some other additive particles in responses. I argue against the response particle analysis of such uses, proposing instead that both refutational and confirmatory uses of additive particles share their core semantics with their regular uses, with the difference being the focus alternatives: alternative commitments with respect to issue p? (a subcase or a sibling of verum focus) in refutational cases vs. alternative performances of a speech act making the same commitment (a subcase of dictum focus) in confirmatory cases.