Ambiguity. The world is strewn with it to a shocking degree. From vision to hearing and especially language, ambiguities define daily life. However, our brains are very good at resolving ambiguity and at deriving meanings in difficult situations. The article “Present Imperfect: Is the human brain ill adapted for language?” presents Gary Marcus’s viewpoint that “syntactic ambiguities throw a wrench that the human brain is well evolved – or even optimally evolved – for language.” This is a simplistic perspective that fails to take into consideration the true complexities under which the brain operates and even discounts the important process of resolving ambiguities in other cognitive processes.
As language has been a much more recent human development than vision, it is true that human brains have had more time to evolve in response to the sense of sight. Therefore, Marcus states that because of this significant difference, the human handling of sight is much more elegant and perfected than our dealings with language. The example that is given to demonstrate the abundance of ambiguities in our language is a favorite of many linguists: “the spy shot the cop with the revolver.” Structurally, it seems to be a simple sentence, but it contains ambiguities most people would not even recognize. Who had the revolver? The spy or the cop? This statement would not normally elicit further analysis, but there could be some confusion as the sentence is not completely clear. Despite Marcus’s argument that our brains are not set up to deal with language rationally, we are in fact surprisingly good at handling ambiguities like this and at understanding the usual intentions. This process of resolving ambiguities is more important than the fact that they are present in speech in the first place.
The underlying premise of Marcus’s argument is inherently flawed. He bases his idea that the brain is not “evolved or even optimally evolved” on the existence of simple syntactic ambiguities. Yet he gives no merit to the fact that humans are skillful at figuring out the meaning of a sentence based on context and external cues. This process is actually analogous to vision, a process he stated was much more evolved than language. When one examines the mechanics of sight, it becomes apparent that it is a series of resolutions of visual ambiguities. We do not see the world as it truly is because there is either too much information for our brains to process it all or there is not sufficient information to produce a coherent view of the world. The brain makes many assumptions in the process of seeing. And it does the very same thing in the process of understanding language. While sight is not a construct of the human brain as language is, both rely on the same overarching principle of resolving ambiguities. Therefore, although language may not be the most rational expression or way of communication, it should not be said that the presence of ambiguities in language denigrate the capacities or complexities of the mind.
This is a cool article. You say that language is not the most rational expression of language; what do you think serves that role better? Also, I learned today that people who speak several languages are better able to pick out relevant information, so I wonder if bilingual speakers face the same challenges with ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteHi Annie! I blogged on this article, too. I definitely agree with you that ambiguities in language do not mean that the human brain is "ill adapted" for language. It is to our advantage to be able to come up with assumptions about the meaning of sentences very quickly. Without these assumptions of reference, we would not be able to have fluid conversations. Furthermore, I agree with you that the author did not give enough credit to the fact that, as you say, "humans are skillful at figuring out the meaning of a sentence based on context and external cues." Given the relatively short amount of time language has had to develop, it is impressive how much we can infer from context. Although these inferences are fallible, such as in the "the spy shot the cop with the revolver" example, they are ultimately very useful. I enjoyed reading your post and thought it was very insightful!
ReplyDelete