Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
all others.
18
However, a reasonable alternative specification is available according
to the temperament being modeled—for example, in (
12.17
) the speaker has a
positive self-evaluation and lesser evaluations of others, but none are considered
negatively.
2
4
3
5
person: polarity
1st:
=1
i
(16)
attitude
2nd:
=
i
3rd:
=
i
2
3
person: polarity
1st:
4
5
=1
(17)
attitude
2nd:
=0
3rd:
=0
The propensity for triggers of disgust to spread to associates in a contagion
is modeled with the sharing of the minimum value of the offence level as in
(
12.18
).
19
Because this is a worst-case formulation of contagion in which all are
deemed contaminated within an event if any are, the principle, even expressed as a
conditional, must be understood as dependent on additional parameters not specified
here.
(18)Contam
ina
tio
n s
preads
.MINf
j
j9
i
; o.e/
:after-
e
:person:
i :
polarity:
j
gD1/ H)
8
k
; o.e/
:after-
e
:person:
k
:polarity
D1
When extreme values emerge, follow-on reactions by the reflecting agent
may be expected, depending on other constraints that are in effect at the time.
As appropriate to the levels of offence associated with each participant in an event
being commented upon (whether a dialogue event within an ongoing conversation
or in the rest of the external world), linguistic behaviors may be anticipated.
12.3.2
Predictions
Predictions about the behavior of a speaker may be made on the basis of further
instantiation of
o
and the
e
on which it depends. Below,
-polarity refers to the
final value within
o
for the corresponding grammatical person or the proto-agent
of the triggering event (
e
). The defaults (
12.19
)-(
12.23
) characterize reasonable
18
A formal framework for default feature structures is available (Lascarides et al.
1996
); the value
to the right of the slash is defeasible. Co-indexing encodes value sharing.
19
This formulation is hopefully more clear than that of Vogel (
2014a
); however, this one, too,
involves polymorphic notation—here, in that the “
D
” of the antecedent is a test of equality while
the one in the consequent is an assignment.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search