Open esmanning opened 3 years ago
I think of forgiveness as a speech act! What about Originator~Gestalt?
Interesting! I think you can forgive someone without saying so, and saying you forgive someone doesn't necessarily mean you really do
I suppose there's an emotional component of forgiveness which may or may not be consistent with a speech act of forgiveness. But in the prototype they are.
Experiencer would highlight the emotional component whereas Originator would highlight the speech act component. If someone is asking someone else for forgiveness that feels to me like a focus on the speech act side (even if it's a fictive conversation, e.g. the narrator "talking with" the reader).
Collecting more judgments! https://twitter.com/EmmaSManning/status/1288887621863845889
Collecting more judgments! https://twitter.com/EmmaSManning/status/1288887621863845889
I voted for "both".
FrameNet's Forgiveness frame: https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/fnReports/data/frame/Forgiveness.xml
Do these sound equally (im)plausible?
I would be ok with the first, but not the second
I think both of those are acceptable. I feel like "forgive" can refer to both the emotional part (stopping feeling resent towards someone) as well as the speech act (the polite/culturally accepted response to an apology).
However, when you ask for forgiveness, I think you are eliciting the mental state, not the speech act. I think "forgiveness", the noun, really favours the emotion. (After all, you want the person to actually stop being mad at you, not just say something nice)
Should it be like "decide", then—a purely mental but volitional event? I forget, do we call that Agent or Experiencer?
We just dealt with "one's promise", labelling it Agent~Gestalt given that it is a volitional act. It's similarly both a speech act and experience like this.
This seems to be a grey area between Agent\~Gestalt and Experiencer\~Gestalt: is forgiving a thing you do or a mental state?
Also a similar ambiguity in chapter 15 with HIS discovery