Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A growing body of developmental evidence suggests that the cognitive abilities that enable the expression and comprehension of communicative intentions – so-called pragmatic abilities – which underlie language use and understanding, develop early. However, a puzzling feature of pragmatic development is children's difficulties with non-literal uses of language (e.g., ‘I love you so much I could eat you up!’). I outline a research program that aims to provide input to a novel theoretical account of pragmatic development that resolves this developmental puzzle. Rather than investigating different types of non-literal language use in isolation, we should adopt a global perspective on children's pragmatic difficulties. On the basis of experimental evidence from children's comprehension of metonymy and irony, I hypothesise that children's growing sensitivity to sense conventions impedes their pragmatic reasoning with non-literal uses during the preschool years. According to this hypothesis, children's ‘literalism’ does not result from poor pragmatic abilities, but arises because attending to conventions – and to sense conventions in particular - serves an important function at a particular stage of language and social learning. The aim is to open a new direction for empirical research into the development of non-literal uses of language, and pragmatic development more generally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ingrid Lossius Falkum (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: