The joys of the semantic method

Kai von Fintel has thoughtfully provided a link to an interesting and worthwhile paper for those interested in the polarity of yes/no questions. It's a tad dense, so SC won't read it all for a day or two, but for those who aren't going to be reading the paper at all, your host would like to share the sorts of examples, found in this paper, that make doing semantics fun:

Scenario: S hates both Pat and Jane. The prospect of an excursion without them pleases S. S does not have any previous belief about whether either of them is coming or not. A: Pat is not coming. S: Great! Is Jane not coming (either)? That would be the best!!! S’: # Great! Isn’t Jane coming (either)? That would be the best!!!

Scenario: Michael has been upset at Sue since yesterday’s meeting. The speaker is wondering how this could have been avoided. The speaker has no belief about what Sue should or should not have done. A: Michael has not been happy with Sue since yesterday’s meeting. S: Should she not have talked to him (at the meeting) / (yet)? S’: # Should she not have talked to him already?

If the reader is beginning to suspect that semanticists are actually closet romance novelists -- YOU'RE RIGHT!

More seriously, this is how semantics usually proceeds. Start with an interesting grammatical phenomenon (in this case, question polarity). Concoct a couple of scenarios which would cause someone to make a comment exhibiting the grammatical phenomenon. Consider possible responses. Deduce from the responses an underlying logical form, and the operations that permit/exclude the various responses.

In any event ([it's either that or an entity -- ed.]), your host will spend his free time over the next day or two considering whether or not he's got some offended coworkers after all. In case any of them is reading this, SC loved whatever you made at the last potluck. His comments apply strictly to the person who made something like yours, except not as good, just like you said.