The Barner article was talking about how words that vaguely qualify the amount of something, like "some" or "many", are on a scalar scale, even though they do not represent a finite number. Children, however, are often unable to identify this as they do not qualify these words on a scale in the same way that they qualify numeric values.
I think that this is interesting because it shows that people can use imprecise language to talk about precise things. Our intentions go beyond the language that we use, and social context allows for our meanings to shine through despite the imprecision of our language.
The Stiller (et al) article used three experiments to show that differences help children learn. Children come to realize that having certain features is more strange than not having them. For example, it is more noteworthy to have a monocle than to not have a monocle. In this way, children are able to learn the nuances of scalar implicature.
Theses readings made me think about the ways in which we harness language. We are often semantically vague in our meanings -- "I drank some of the wine" could, in fact, mean that that person drank all of the wine since "some" doesn't actually negate "all". However, when we hear this statement we assume that there is still wine left. This makes me think about lies of omission. One could harness this linguistic loophole and still technically be truthful. This, however, begins to get into ethics, which I'm not even going to try to comment on.
I appreciate your insight on the ways in which we use imprecise language to talk about precise things. I wonder what the implications of this are not just for kids but older people as well as we continue to build are well of increasingly complex abstract concepts. In some ways, and this might be a stretch, it can be one explanation for the miscommunications and disagreements that some people have over issues of race, sex, and other domains that require more specific vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteYou should comment on ethics! I wanna hear more about that if you have more thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI think that people do in fact use scalar implicatures to technically tell the truth while implying a lie quite often. Your post made me think that perhaps the reason children do not develop the ability to understand and implement scalar implicature so that they don't torment their parents.
ReplyDeleteLies of omission are definitely a part of implicatures. If this interests you, you should take LINGUIST130A, about semantics and pragmatics, as we cover how implicatures can affect court cases and trials. Furthermore, it's interesting because people often give themselves away when speaking to authorities because they will subconsciously say something that they did not want to, through implicatures.
ReplyDelete