 Some question the explanatory value of such a dynamic interpretation in the sense that the framework fails to account for why there appear to be no natural language expressions that encode a minimal variation of  (17),  where the local context of the second disjunct \(S\)2 is \(C[S1]\) instead of \(C[\textrm{not }S1]\), or where the local context of \(S\)1 is based on an update with \(S\)2, or where there are no local contexts at all as in  (18)  (see, for instance, Soames 1989).