An official website of the United States government
In this paper, I explore metalinguistic discourse in Zinacantec Family Homesign (‘Z sign’), an emergent sign language developed by three deaf siblings and their hearing family members. In particular, I examine how metalinguistic discourse unfolds between a hearing Z signer and various members of her family—including her deaf siblings, her elderly hearing father, and her young hearing son. I do so via a close examination of several snippets of conversation in which the Z signers talk about the “right” way to sign, paying close attention to how they mobilize various semiotic devices, including manual signs, eye gaze, facial expressions, and speech. I aim to understand not only the formal components of metalinguistic discourse in Z sign but also how it functions as a form of social action in this small linguistic community. How do members of this family position themselves and others as (in)competent, (non-)authoritative signers in light of existing social divisions among them? How do they reinforce or challenge those social divisions through metalinguistic discourse? How might metalinguistic discourse contribute to the propagation of emergent linguistic norms throughout the family? I find that a recurrent device for enacting metalinguistic critique among the Z signers is the partial re-production and transformation of others’ utterances and other visible actions, manifested in a way that exploits the availability of multiple, semi-independent manual and non-manual articulators in the visual modality.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on September 23, 2026
Inquiry and Logical Form
ABSTRACT Joint inquiry requires agents to exchange public content about some target domain, which in turn requires them to track which content a linguistic form contributes to a conversation. But, often, the inquiry delivers a necessary truth. For example, if we are inquiring whether a particular bird, Tweety, is a woodpecker, and discover that it is, then our inquiry concluding in this fact would conclude in a necessity, and the form “Tweety is a woodpecker” expresses this necessary truth. Still, whether Tweety is a woodpecker seems a perfectly legitimate object of study, and the answers we accrue can be informative. But the dominant model of inquiry (Stalnaker, 1978, 1984) treats this situation as linguistically deviant, and diagnoses our ignorance and subsequent discovery as metalinguistic: we were ignorant, and ultimately discovered something, about the meaning of our terms. Rather than linguistic deviation, we argue this situation is the norm, and one that calls for an alternative model of inquiry. This paper develops such a model. It shows that to capture how agents can learn something informative about the world—and not merely language—even when inquiry concerns necessary facts, it's key to track how moves in discourse contribute public content onto the conversational record, but also, crucially, how those moves are connected by coherence relations to one another and to real‐world situations they are about. This allows us to capture that utterances contribute determinate, public content, while representing the information states of the interlocutors who may have only partial access to the evidence and content of the conversation, without making their ignorance metalinguistic. It lets us give precise explanations why some discourses can be transparently convincing in the conclusions they underwrite. The model thus precisifies the role of public context and shared content in anchoring an inquiry. It allows for imperfect tracking of linguistic contributions that are binding for how inquiry unfolds, and it allows for an inquiry into the status of necessary truths to be both informative, and involve empirical, rather than metalinguistic, ignorance.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10639143
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Philosophical Perspectives
- ISSN:
- 1520-8583
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
In order to understand multimodal interactions between humans or humans and machine, it is minimally necessary to identify the content of the agents’ communicative acts in the dialogue. This can involve either overt linguistic expressions (speech or writing), content-bearing gesture, or the integration of both. But this content must be interpreted relative to a deeper understanding of an agent’s Theory of Mind (one’s mental state, desires, and intentions) in the context of the dialogue as it dynamically unfolds. This, in turn, can require identifying and tracking nonverbal behaviors, such as gaze, body posture, facial expressions, and actions, all of which contribute to understanding how expressions are contextualized in the dialogue, and interpreted relative to the epistemic attitudes of each agent. In this paper, we adopt Generative Lexicon’s approach to event structure to provide a lexical semantics for ontic and epistemic actions as used in Bolander’s interpretation of Dynamic Epistemic Logic, called Lexical Event Modeling (LEM). This allows for the compositional construction of epistemic models of a dialogue state. We demonstrate how veridical and false belief scenarios are treated compositionally within this model.more » « less
-
Effective teamwork depends on teammates’ ability to maintain common ground: mutual knowledge about the relevant state of the world and the relevant status of teammates’ actions and plans. This ability integrates diverse skills of reasoning and communication: agents can track common ground by recognizing and registering public updates to ongoing activity, but when this evidence is incomplete, agents may need to describe what they are doing or ask what others are doing. In this paper, we introduce an architecture for integrating these diverse skills to maintain common ground in human–AI teamwork. Our approach offers unique advantages of simplicity, modularity, and extensibility by leveraging generic tools for plan recognition, planning, natural language understanding and generation, and dialogue management. Worked examples illustrate how linguistic and practical reasoning complement each other in the realization of key interactive skills.more » « less
-
Abstract This paper reports on an investigation of adults' level of endorsement of 18 language myths, including myths about non‐mainstream dialects of English, children's language development, bilingualism, linguistic diversity across the world, the use of English in the language arts, and the job of a linguist. Participants (N = 187) read short vignettes of situations related to each misconception and were asked to justify their assessment of the situation. Responses were coded according to whether they endorsed the myth within the situation. Results showed that endorsement of language myths was highly dependent on the specific myth. Some myths were strongly endorsed (e.g. myths related to linguistic prejudice and children's language development), others were strongly rejected (e.g. myths related to the harmful nature of bilingualism), and others received a mixed pattern of endorsement and rejection. We discuss how this snapshot of public understanding can help linguists target their efforts at public education.more » « less
-
Question asking is a key tool for learning, especially in childhood. However, formulating good questions is challenging. In any given situation, many questions are possible but only few are informative. In the present work, we investigate two ways 5- to 10-year-olds and adults simplify the challenge of formulating questions: by reusing previous questions, and by remixing components of previous questions to form new questions. Our experimental results suggest that children and adults reuse and remix questions and adaptively modulate reuse depending on how informative a question will be in a particular situation. This work shows that task-relevant experience asking questions provides fodder for future questions, simplifying the challenge of inquiry and enabling effective learning.more » « less
