First-person metalinguistic disagreements update the standard of precision, both up and down

Abstract

The standard of precision (SoP) is the discourse parameter governing how much imprecision is tolerated in a given context. Speakers can implicitly negotiate the SoP through metalinguistic disagreements (MDs)—moves that challenge the assertability of an (im)precise utterance in order to signal that the SoP should be updated. Prior work has claimed that such negotiations are asymmetric: MDs can effectively raise the SoP but cannot lower it (e.g., Klecha 2018; Lewis 1979). However, recent experimental work has failed to find evidence for this purported asymmetry (Wu & Aparicio 2025a), motivating further empirical investigation into the validity of this claim. We present results from two studies in which participants engaged in metalinguistic (dis)agreements over (im)precise utterances. Our findings reveal a bidirectional update pattern: MDs can shift the SoP both upward, as previously claimed, and downward, contrary to earlier accounts (Klecha 2018; Lewis 1979). However, these two update types differ qualitatively: participants making imprecise utterances tend to abandon their original stance in favor of the disagreeing view, whereas participants making precise utterances tend to accommodate the disagreement without abandoning their own position. We suggest that this contrast may underlie earlier intuitions about the unidirectionality of SoP updates.