# Linguistic Experiment



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Observe the sentence below stated in various ways through differing tone inflections.

1. _I _didn't think she would get that upset.
2. I_ didn't _think she would get that upset.
3. I didn't _think _she would get that upset.
4. I didn't think _she _would get that upset.
5. I didn't think she _would _get that upset.
6. I didn't think she would _get _that upset.
7. I didn't think she would get _that _upset.
8. I didn't think she would get that _upset_.

Rate the sentences on a scale from most to least inflammatory, i.e. what most or least inspires a negative reaction from you. (Post as many of the 8 as you can rank)

Now, read this sentence below in your mind:

I didn't think she would get that upset.

Which inflection did you involuntarily use in your mind to interpret the otherwise "uninflected" statement? If not any inflection at all (you have monotone voice in your mind), which did it feel most like in terms of emotion to the 8 choices above? (this is purely subjective experiment and not meant for everyone to even interpret the sentences the same way)

Interesting how language works, no?


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

1
5
3
2
4
7
8
6


my natural inflection would be 7


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Number 6 is probably the strangest.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

7, 4, 1, 5, 6, 8, 2, 3 the least inflammatory.


I read the uninflected sentence as 2 or possibly 7


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2016)

no


offence taken my good person


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

3,1,2,4,5,7,6,8


inflection no 7


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

dogen said:


> no
> _ offence taken my good person _


Interesting that the three of us who've posted full replies so far have put the alternatives in such a different order.

dogen? I didn't _think_ he would get that upset.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 8

And I read the straightforward sentence as 7


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

I read it as neutral - ie without emphasis on any of the words.

None of the eight alternatives *are* inflammatory in themselves, but any of them could be inflammatory in certain contexts.

Of course, many of us can apportion meaning to words and sentences outside of their context, but without the context, I tend to read the words and I try not to invent meanings (he said sanctimoniously .... perhaps!)


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2016)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Interesting that the three of us who've posted full replies so far have put the alternatives in such a different order.
> 
> dogen? I didn't _think_ he would get that upset.


I MIGHT get UpSet, yoU NEVER can tELl.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

When I say the sentence in my head, I say number 3. I didn't _think _she would get that upset. I think if I heard 1 or 7 said, I would say the person sounds kinda cold, and the other tones of voice are more neutral. 2 probably sounds the most innocent, even apologetic.

Perhaps a follow up question I have... do you think we should be using more italics in internet postings when it's clear there is a division of how people interpret sentences? Since there is something inherently unnatural about just reading words without attaching language, should we compensate by trying to implement tone of voice into electronic messages besides just using exclamation points and what-not? After all, people get misquoted all the time these days when people read stuff in the wrong tone of voice than it was said in real life.

Take this comedy sketch for example, which of course exaggerates the effect, but you see its point: 



 (warning, language)


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> When I say the sentence in my head, I say number 3. I didn't _think _she would get that upset. I think if I heard 1 or 7 said, I would say the person sounds kinda cold, and the other tones of voice are more neutral. 2 probably sounds the most innocent, even apologetic.
> 
> Perhaps a follow up question I have... do you think we should be using more italics in internet postings when it's clear there is a division of how people interpret sentences? Since there is something inherently unnatural about just reading words without attaching language, should we compensate by trying to implement tone of voice into electronic messages besides just using exclamation points and what-not? After all, people get misquoted all the time these days when people read stuff in the wrong tone of voice than it was said in real life.
> 
> ...


Smileys were invented for this exact reason I believe. Anyway, it would be fairly messy to italicize EVERY single word - we tend to naturally stress words if we feel the need for it. If there *is* an issue with any particular statement you can always ask the poster to clarify.

The biggest problem I tend to run into is in regards to sarcasm and joking around - people often can't tell when I'm serious or joking unless they know me well, and I hate to have to clarify it with some sort of smiley all the time. Sucks the fun right out of it. On the other hand it can sometimes be hard to tell when someone is being cheeky or patronizing, smartass or just mean - or if the "voice tone" is lighthearted or grave before reading enough posts by a particular user.

The voice (and facial expressions etc.) lends itself to nuanced inflections and sub-meaning that I don't usually expect from a text being a far more 'dry' emotional conduit. That said, the easiest way to clarify your meaning can be done with the actual word choice, sentence structure etc. rather then some system of signals, which is IMO rather impractical, beyond the occasional touch up. The problem is that especially with casual texting, we don't bother to ponder the subtleties of how another person reads our posts all the time, particularly since it's individualized and up to interpretation.

Let's take my first sentence as a standalone for example - it can be read in any number of ways. For instance:

"Smileys were invented for this exact reason I believe" - this can be interpreted to have been said in a somewhat flippant manner (if that was all I said) but maybe the poster merely wanted to make a quick remark on the topic with no intention of being dismissive. I guess most people just adapt to the ambiguity and call it a day, as if you really need drive a particular point home then you WILL make SURE that you stress your meaning.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> "Smileys were invented for this exact reason I believe" - this can be interpreted to have been said in a somewhat flippant manner (if that was all I said) but maybe the poster merely wanted to make a quick remark on the topic with no intention of being dismissive. I guess most people just adapt to the ambiguity and call it a day, as if you really need drive a particular point home then you WILL make SURE that you stress your meaning.


I also think part of it may have to do with the mood of the reader themselves. If they're already in a bad mood, they may read other people's comments with a negative spin on them, and vice versa if they're in a good mood. I guess what's important is to identify what the mood is of the writer.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

I believe smileys convey a different type of message as compared to the use of italics. They convey the overall mood of the writer rather than different meanings of the sentence.

I didn't _think_ she would get that upset  --> surprised and worried
I didn't _think_ she would get that upset  --> slightly amused 
I didn't _think_ she would get that upset  --> sad about it
I didn't _think_ she would get that upset :/ --> disappointed / contrite
I didn't _think_ she would get that upset >( --> upset

...and I believe you can actually add most of these smileys to most of the eight senteces in the OP.
It's like they override the effectiveness of the italics. Or, on the other hand, italics are not enough to clarify the intention of the writer.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Stavrogin said:


> I believe smileys convey a different type of message as compared to the use of italics. They convey the overall mood of the writer rather than different meanings of the sentence.
> 
> I didn't _think_ she would get that upset  --> surprised and worried
> I didn't _think_ she would get that upset  --> slightly amused
> ...


Heh! In that case, I wonder if human expression will eventually become restricted to only what is available as emojis, so that the more complicated shades of emotion are dismissed. But I guess then you could use multiple faces.  A lot of chat places don't have the legitimate emojis available yet (the ones used on facebook and other places), including this one to a degree. There surely could be other ways to express tone, maybe italics, or bold, or even font color. Who knows. And still people won't always interpret things as was intended. A constant battle for communication, I guess.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Sure, I don't think it should even be an aim for written communication to replicate oral one. 
I always think that back when we had no choice but to write letters (it feels like centuries ago, but I am old enough to have experienced that), we didn't use smileys and we didn't use italics or bold. Underline maybe, but rarely. 
We just used to write more and more clearly I guess.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

What about intonation? 

´= higher pitch
`= lower pitch

0. I didn't think she would get that upset.

1. Í didn't think she would get that upset.
2. I dídn't think she would get that upset.
3. I didn't thínk she would get that upset.
4. I didn't think shé would get that upset.
5. I didn't think she wóuld get that upset.
6. I didn't think she would gét that upset.
7. I didn't think she would get thát upset.
8. I didn't think she would get that upsét.

9. Ì didn't think she would get that upset.
10. I dìdn't think she would get that upset.
11. I didn't thìnk she would get that upset.
12. I didn't think shè would get that upset.
13. I didn't think she wòuld get that upset.
14. I didn't think she would gèt that upset.
15. I didn't think she would get thàt upset.
16. I didn't think she would get that upsèt.


A good candidate for inflammatory is: 9 + 3 + 15


----------

