It is widely accepted that, in the course of interpreting a metaphorical utterance, both literal and metaphorical interpretations of the utterance are available to the interpreter, although there may be disagreement about the order in which these interpretations are accessed. I call this the dual availability assumption. I argue that it does not apply in cases of metaphorical singular reference. These are cases in which proper names, complex demonstratives or definite descriptions are used metaphorically; e.g., ‘That festering sore must go’, (...) referring to a derelict house. We are forced to give up dual availability in these cases because a process of predicate transfer happens in the restriction clauses of such metaphorically used definite phrases, so that a denotation-less definite concept is never constructed. A process of enriched composition yields only a metaphorical referent/denotation. I compare cases of metaphorical reference both to cases of metonymic reference and to uses of epithets of the ‘That N of an N’ form. Reflection on the former is helpful in getting clear about the kind of property transfer involved in referential metaphors. Such transfer happens directly at the level of properties and is not mediated via a correspondence between objects, as is the case with metonymic reference. Reflection on epithets such as ‘that festering sore of a house’ is helpful since these are a sort of intermediate case between cases of literal and metaphorical reference. They provide support for my claim that in cases of metaphorical reference there is only a single referent. Moreover, constraints on the use of these epithets suggest that referential metaphors are similarly constrained. In particular, I argue that referential metaphors can only be used when the implicit category restriction is highly salient, and that the evaluative information conveyed by the metaphor serves primarily to indicate the speaker’s attitude towards the referent rather than being intended to help the hearer identify the referent. (shrink)

Successful peer relations in older children depend on proficiency with banter, which in turn frequently involves verbal irony. Individual differences in successful irony interpretation have traditionally been attributed to Theory of Mind. Our premise was that the key factor might in fact be cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between different perspectives (here: on the same utterance). We also wished to extend the focus of previous irony studies, which have almost exclusively examined Simple Irony, where the literal meaning conflicts with (...) observable physical evidence (e.g. ‘great day for a picnic’ when viewing a downpour). Therefore, we also examined how children interpreted more Complex Irony, where listeners must consider at a deeper level the common ground shared with the speakers (e.g. general knowledge / cultural common ground or information about the particular speaker). In Study 1 we found that for six- to eight-year-olds both cognitive flexibility and Theory of Mind contributed unique variance to Simple Irony interpretation, when statistically controlling for non-verbal reasoning and structural language standardised scores. Neither inhibitory control, working memory nor general knowledge correlated with irony interpretation. Six- to eight-year-olds were at floor for Complex Irony. In Study 2 we found that cognitive flexibility contributed unique variance to how ten- to twelve-year-olds interpreted Complex Irony, while controlling for non-verbal reasoning, structural language and specific knowledge required. We are the first to examine the relationship with cognitive flexibility and conclude it must be taken into account when investigating the relationship between Theory of Mind and irony interpretation. (shrink)

The central problem for pragmatics is that sentence meaning vastly underdetermines speaker’s meaning. The goal of pragmatics is to explain how the gap between sentence meaning and speaker’s meaning is bridged. This paper defends the broadly Gricean view that pragmatic interpretation is ultimately an exercise in mind-reading, involving the inferential attribution of intentions. We argue, however, that the interpretation process does not simply consist in applying general mind-reading abilities to a particular (communicative) domain. Rather, it involves a dedicated comprehension module, (...) with its own special principles and mechanisms. We show how such a metacommunicative module might have evolved, and what principles and mechanisms it might contain. (shrink)

Individual differences in children's talk about inner states are striking, but how should they be interpreted? This study used transcripts of preschoolers’ conversations with siblings and best friends to address this question in two ways. Our first aim was to elucidate the exact nature of individual differences by contrasting categories (emotion/desire vs. cognitive state) and referents (own vs. other/shared) of inner state talk. Our second aim was to compare performance vs. competence views of inner state talk by exploring (i) the (...) stability of individual differences in inner state talk across different relationships and (ii) the cognitive correlates of inner state talk. A sample of 44 children (mean age = 4 years 3 months) was observed for 20 minutes at home playing with a sib and for 20 minutes at school playing with a best friend. Videos were transcribed and coded for the frequency and form of inner state talk (e.g., talk about different categories of inner state, or about own vs. others’ inner states). During the school visits, children completed a set of tasks tapping theory-of-mind skills and verbal ability. Individual differences in inner state talk (especially reference to others’ inner states) were stable across relationships. There was no association between individual differences in talk about cognitive vs. emotion/desire states, although both categories of inner state talk were significantly associated with individual differences in children's theory-of-mind skills. (shrink)

Children vary in their ability to use language in social contexts and this has important consequences for wellbeing. We review studies that test whether individual differences in pragmatic skill are associated with formal language ability, mentalising and executive functions in both typical and atypical development. The strongest and most consistent associations found were between pragmatic and formal language. Additional associations with mentalising were observed, particularly with discourse contingency and irony understanding. Fewer studies considered executive function and evidence is mixed. To (...) make progress, high-quality studies of specific pragmatic skills are needed to test mechanistic models of development. We propose 6 goals for future research: 1) developing an empirically-based taxonomy of pragmatic skills; 2) establishing which skills matter most for everyday functioning; 3) testing specific hypotheses about information processing; 4) augmenting measures of individual differences; 5) considering a broader set of psychological associates; 6) employing statistical tools that model the nested structure of pragmatics and cognition. (shrink)