While reading “Ad-hoc scalar implicature in adults and children,” I was surprised — though perhaps not rightfully — by the authors’ assertion that speakers always describe events in the most specific terms available, and therefore that “any alternative statement which is more informative than the spoken statement must be false — because the speaker could have said that statement had it been true.” While this claim certainly makes sense (why say “I had a bite of your apple” when you can say “I ate your apple?”), it assumes that adults don’t frequently and intentionally warp language to create near-truths. While a listener might infer information from a speaker ad-hoc (from the first statement, that the speaker at only a bite) this inference is purely inductive. In other words, while it’s likely given contextual cues that the speaker ate only a bite of the apple, this claim is not logically deductible. As the article stated, adults employ “conversation shorthand of . . . weak terms to employ the negation of stronger ones that lie along the same “scale.” However, as is demonstrated both by children’s inability to distinguish between “some” and “all” and by walking through a logical proof, this shorthand leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainly.
Often, our ability to deduce a truth from a negation is beneficial. We can quickly and often sub-consciously understand how much information about a situation we have just by knowing what we don’t know. However, I’ve spent a fair amount of this post-election week consider the myriad ways in which language can be manipulated to create false narratives. When do we conflate “some” and “all” because it’s to our semantic advantage? In other words, how do we use our understanding of the way people interpret language — that “some” means “not all” — paired with our understanding that, logically, “some” doesn’t necessarily mean “not all” to get away with deception? If we know that people overwhelmingly derive “truth” from the logical fallacy that “some” means “not all,” do we have an obligation to speak in a way that adheres to that rule?
On a different and lighter note, both of articles made me consider how children develop to understand exaggerations and sarcasm. Because of the combination of kids’ relatively limited processing power and low-capacity working memory, it’s reasonable to imagine that a lack of understanding of non-rote scalar implicature would lead to an inability to understand exaggeration and sarcasm. As both articles emphasized, contextual understanding is necessary to rejecting falsehoods. A certain amount of sarcasm comprehension, then, is a product of growing up and learning how to read contextual clues. But sarcasm and exaggeration are also engrained in tone and body language. Does the ability to read those cues develop independently of the ability to understand linguistic context? Does growing up in a household as sarcastic as mine aid in my development of sarcasm?
Sarcasm is fascinating (no, really)! The more a child's theory of the mind develops, the more attuned they will become to how people decide to weigh parameters of speech (expressiveness, ease of speech, aesthetic value, etc.) To become aware of sarcasm is one thing, but to decide to use it is to acknowledge that it carries potential advantages, like terseness and ability to convey one's in-group status. Interestingly, sarcasm seems to be less 'funny' when context is not required to detect it, i.e., when one uses a heavy sarcastic tone of voice. Perhaps, then, there is some mental process which rewards us for identifying the more subtle strains of sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteHi Annabel,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point about sarcasm and exaggeration, how often do you see children who seem exaggerate without realising that they're doing it; though I wonder whether preschoolers can understand sarcasm, given that children seem to have the same "processing ability as adults," and that sarcasm doesn't necessarily have to mention scale.
You bring up the incredibly interesting point that we often use illogical language in order to make claims seem valid through purely semantic means. What it makes me realise is that children need to evetually "learn" how to use these scalar adjectives (and more often than not, do), but they have incredibly faulty data with which to do it, hearing language laced with exaggeration, sarcasm, and false narratives. Being able to do that is quite amazing.