ssible answers. Question meanings can now be taken to sets of kinds of situations. Thus, a alternative question (which I return to in the context of caseanaphora in Sect. 6) will be assigned as its meaning the set of kinds of situations that are truthmakers of the disjuncts, so that (20) will also be the meaning of (21): (21) Did someone arrive late or did someone not come? Kind-based meanings thus will serve different semantic purposes, being involved in the semantics of case-NPs as well as that of disjunctive questions. 2.2.2 Extensions of truthmaker semantics Truthmaker semantics as outlined in the previous section needs to be supplemented by an account of context dependency. I will make use of a notion of context that serves strictly the purposes of this paper, setting aside all other linguistic issues of context dependency. This notion is a local, shiftable context, which can be taken to be either the utterance of the sentence itself or else a reported attitude or epistemic state, for a sentence embedded under an attitude verb or epistemic modal.18 Such a context, being a local context, may shift for the evaluation of an embedded sentence in the scope of an attitude verb or modal expression. The context for the evaluation of the entire sentence is the primary context and the shifted context for the evaluation of an embedded sentence a secondary context. A context c will be associated with a 18 Such contexts can be taken to consist in attitudinal objects, in the sense of Moltmann (2013a, 2014, 2017a), which include claims, requests, beliefs, inquiries, and considerations. See also Fn 20. 123 Situations, alternatives, and the semantics of 'cases' domain D(c), which consists in entities considered actual by the agent(s) associated with c. A sentence then denotes a set of situations (its exact truthmakers) only relative to a context c. A simple sentence such as The president is responsible then has a (positive) meaning relative to a context c that consists in the set of situations attributing responsibility to t