Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
2
2
3
3
person: polarity
1st:
4
after-
e
|
:
4
5
5
o.e
|
/ D
(25)a.
> 1
attitude
2nd:
<1
o.e
|
/
:after-
e
|
:person:1st:polarity
> o.e
|
/
:after-
e
|
:person:2nd:polarity
b.
2
2
3
3
person:
polarity
4
after-
e
:
4
5
5
o.e
/ D
(26)a.
1st:
1 _ 0 _1
attitude
2nd:
1 _ 0 _1
o.e
/
:after-
e
:person:1st:polarity
Do.e
/
:after-
e
:person:2nd:polarity
b.
More generally, epithets of impoliteness may be taken to denote sets of events
in which the speaker's ultimate self-estimation exceeds the speaker's estimation of
others (
12.27
). In contrast, epithets of politeness express sets of events constrained
by the opposed relation (
12.28
).
(27)
e:Œo.e/
:after-
e
:person:1st:polarity
> o.e/
:after-
e
:person:2nd:polarity
(28)
e:Œo.e/
:after-
e
:person:1st:polarity
< o.e/
:after-
e
:person:2nd:polarity
These denotations are not assumed to exhaust the meanings of corresponding
expressions. The lexical semantics of any two expressions of (im)politeness may
separate them further, conveying other vivid associations. However, on the current
theory, with respect to (im)politeness, addressing someone as “fool” supports the
same inference as addressing the person as “spittle,” in terms of the speaker's
estimation of the addressee versus the speaker's self-estimation.
21
One may wish
to argue further that this is the same meaning contribution provided by acid delivery
(D'Errico and Poggi
2014
).
12.4
Puzzles Revisited
That the framework provides a theoretical explanation of both general and uniquely
linguistic puzzles of (im)politeness demonstrates that the semantic framework
offers a useful interface to pragmatics (Sect.
12.2.1
). To dismiss the possibility
of a theory of linguistic (im)politeness on the basis of the fact that virtually any
expression may be used politely or impolitely extends to dismissing all of semantics,
given that any expression may be used literally, metaphorically, or ironically.
However, this dismissal seems wrong, since, for example, irony is parasitic on
literal meaning. Thus, in the view adopted here, both linguistic and extra-linguistic
aspects of (im)politeness may be understood in relation to the perception of
agents participating in events. The constraints involved may or may not lead to
linguistic articulations. One need not accept all of the postulates in Leech's theory
of pragmatics (Leech
1983
) to agree with his view that “if we approach meaning
21
A theory which supports infinite graduations of esteem or disgust is not antithetical to the present
work, but is not central to the present cause, either.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search