Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:25:31.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual differences and metalinguistic abilities*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Joseph F. Kess
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Ronald A. Hoppe
Affiliation:
University of Victoria

Extract

In the linguistic literature much is made, both implicitly and explicitly, of metalinguistic abilities but little is seen on the role of individual differences. The role of individual differences in ambiguity detection and resolution is discussed here as an example of the range of individual variation in shared abilities of the metalinguistic type.

It is not the case that all reader/hearers of the language possess the same linguistic abilities with respect to metalinguistic tasks. From a theoretical point of view, linguists have typically assumed it was the case and necessarily so for postulating an ideal competence grammar. But in doing so we have often come to assume that such basic metatheory considerations show up reliably and uniformly even in performance tasks. There is a large and growing body of evidence to remind us that this is not so. Certainly, it holds true neither in the areas of paraphrase nor in ambiguity detection and resolution, two of the more basic metatheoretical premises, and it may not be so in other areas of language either. Very simply, apparently shared linguistic abilities operate on the same type of a graded continuum scale that cognitive abilities of a more general sort do. Having benefited from the postulation of abstract mental structures for ideal speaker/hearers, we are once again recognizing the importance of individual differences in defining the nature of psycholinguistic tasks, as well as the nature of language abilities.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bever, T. G. (1970) “The cognitive basis for linguistic structures.” In Hayes, J. R., ed. Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., and Gleitman, H. (1970) Phrase and paraphrase. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. A., and Kess, J. F. (1980) “Differential detection of ambiguity in Japanese.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 9: 30318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Fodor, J. A. (1963) “The structure of a semantic theory.” Language 39: 170210.Google Scholar
Kess, J. F., and Hoppe, R. A. (1982) “The interaction of bias and context in ambiguity detection.” Paper presented at the XIIIth International Congress of Linguistics, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Lalcoff, G. (1970) “Note on vagueness in ambiguity.” Linguistic Inquiry 1,3:35759.Google Scholar
Lefever, M. M., and Ehri, L. C. (1976) “The relationship between field independence and sentence disambiguation ability.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 5,2:99107.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. (1974) Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mackay, D. G. (1970) “Mental diplopia: Towards a model of speech perception at the semantic level.” In d’Arcais, G. B. and Levelt, W. J. M., eds. Advances in Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 76100.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1970) “Semantic components in complex verbs.” Paper presented at University of Calgary Symposium on Modern Trends in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Oden, G. C. (1978) “Semantic constraints and judged preference for interpretations of ambiguous sentences.” Memory and Cognition 6,1:2637.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. N. and MacKay, D. G. (1974) “Completion and verification of ambiguous sentences.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13:45770.Google Scholar