6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening: dissociating adjectival polarity from facethreatening potential

      ,
      Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
      Ubiquity Press, Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The interpretation of negated antonyms is characterised by a polarity asymmetry: the negation of a positive polarity antonym (X is not interesting) is more likely to be strengthened to convey its opposite (‘X is uninteresting’) than the negation of a negative polarity antonym (X is not uninteresting to convey that ‘X is interesting’) is. A classical explanation of this asymmetry relies on face-management. Since the predication of a negative polarity antonym (X is uninteresting) is potentially face-threatening in most contexts, the negation of the corresponding positive polarity antonym (X is not interesting) is more likely to be interpreted as an indirect strategy to minimise face-threat while getting the message across. We present two experimental studies in which we test the predictions of this explanation. In contrast with it, our results show that adjectival polarity, but not face-threatening potential, appears to be responsible for the asymmetric interpretation of negated antonyms.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known.

          N L Kerr (1998)
          This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as i f it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing ' s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing's costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Politeness: Some universals in language usage

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
                Glossa
                Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
                2397-1835
                January 04 2021
                April 12 2021
                : 6
                : 1
                : 47
                Article
                10.5334/gjgl.1342
                692df511-0d71-4e9d-bcbc-8388c4e6e7ad
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


                Comments

                Comment on this article