Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
2
3
2
3
person:
polarity
4
5
4
5
before-
e
4
:
1st:
.1 _ 0/
i
2nd:
i
2
3
person:
polarity
4
5
1st:
.0 _1/
j
o.e
4
/ D
during-
e
4
:
(29)a.
attitude
2nd:
j
2
3
person:
polarity
4
5
1st:
.0 _1/
k
after-
e
4
:
2nd:
k
o.e
4
/
:after-
e
4
:person:1st:polarity
< o.e
4
/
:before-
e
4
:person:1st:polarity
b.
That the contrasting example (
12.13
) is less felicitous constitutes possible
evidence that the principle of extreme positive values (
12.24
.
b
) does not have force.
The infelicity of the reflexive politeness example (
12.13
) could be explained by
the impossibility of signalling greater esteem than is already conveyed in the default
discussed above (
12.16
) with respect to the situation being evaluated (
12.30
).
24
While at face value both of these expressions ((
12.12
) and (
12.13
)) are contrary to
the prediction of politic behavior with equal first and second person polarity, in the
case of the politeness reflexive, unlike the impoliteness example, a differentiation
of polarities associated with the co-extensive first and second person roles is more
difficult to achieve. The constraint expressed by the explicit language of politeness
cannot be satisfied in this formulation (
12.30
.
b
).
2
3
2
3
person: polarity
1st:
4
5
4
5
before-
e
~
:
1
i
2nd:
i
2
3
person: polarity
1st:
4
5
1
j
o.e
~
/ D
during-
e
~
:
(30)a.
attitude
2nd:
j
2
4
3
5
person: polarity
1st:
1
k
after-
e
~
:
2nd:
k
#
o.e
~
/
:after-
e
~
:person:1st:polarity
> o.e
~
/
:before-
e
~
:person:1st:polarity
b.
24
This would be an explanation in the spirit of the observation within generalized quantifier
theory that positive strong determiners as arguments to existential assertions amount to tautologies,
thereby accounting for the oddity of non-contrastive and non-demonstrative uses of sentences like
“there is the person at the door” (cf. “there is a person at the door”) (Barwise and Cooper
1981
).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search