The twelve languages analysed in the study. Source: Max Planck Institute of Psychology.
A group of scientists of the Max Planck Institute of Psycholinguistics of Nijmegen (Netherlands) has discovered that the mechanisms that people use to clarify confusions in conversations are the same all around the world.
The research, which has won one of the prizes Ig Nobel (which honours the most noteworthy scientific publications), notes that people resolve misunderstandings while communicating once every 90 seconds in all languages.
Scientists analysed video recordings of conversations of twelve different languages of the five continents. The languages were English, Mandarin, Russian, Cha’paa of Ecuador, Siwu of Ghana, and the sign language of Argentina. All of them deeply differ between them in phonetics and grammar. The comparison showed that the same basic system is used to solve linguistic ambiguities. Initially, the system consists in people asking for an explanation of what it has just been said.
In general, researchers identified three strategies to solve linguistic ambiguities. The first one, the “open question”, which is usually expressed just with a simple “eh?.” It means that there is a deep problem with comprehension and that it is required a bigger effort in the clarification of the information: complete repetition of what has been said is required.
The second strategy consists in questioning concrete questions, such as “Who?” or “Where?” to clarify a certain piece of information or discover details. The third option is that the hearer repeats what has been just said or repeats it with his own words, asking for confirmation. The last strategy does not require a great effort on the clarification of the information, may be just a simple “yes”.
It also attracts attention that most people try to solve linguistic misunderstandings altruistically, and mainly chose a strategy that minimises the effort required by the speaker to solve the interruption (the third one). This reveals the social nature of the use of human language, indicates the note of the Institute.
No other species is known to interrupt a conversation in order to verify that has understood it. Scientists hope that their discovery contributes to make computers more “human” in the future if they do not manage to understand spoken instructions. The research group believes that other possible applications for their study could be in the teaching practice or in inter-cultural cooperation.
The research, which has won one of the prizes Ig Nobel (which honours the most noteworthy scientific publications), notes that people resolve misunderstandings while communicating once every 90 seconds in all languages.
Scientists analysed video recordings of conversations of twelve different languages of the five continents. The languages were English, Mandarin, Russian, Cha’paa of Ecuador, Siwu of Ghana, and the sign language of Argentina. All of them deeply differ between them in phonetics and grammar. The comparison showed that the same basic system is used to solve linguistic ambiguities. Initially, the system consists in people asking for an explanation of what it has just been said.
In general, researchers identified three strategies to solve linguistic ambiguities. The first one, the “open question”, which is usually expressed just with a simple “eh?.” It means that there is a deep problem with comprehension and that it is required a bigger effort in the clarification of the information: complete repetition of what has been said is required.
The second strategy consists in questioning concrete questions, such as “Who?” or “Where?” to clarify a certain piece of information or discover details. The third option is that the hearer repeats what has been just said or repeats it with his own words, asking for confirmation. The last strategy does not require a great effort on the clarification of the information, may be just a simple “yes”.
It also attracts attention that most people try to solve linguistic misunderstandings altruistically, and mainly chose a strategy that minimises the effort required by the speaker to solve the interruption (the third one). This reveals the social nature of the use of human language, indicates the note of the Institute.
No other species is known to interrupt a conversation in order to verify that has understood it. Scientists hope that their discovery contributes to make computers more “human” in the future if they do not manage to understand spoken instructions. The research group believes that other possible applications for their study could be in the teaching practice or in inter-cultural cooperation.
English
