Gaia, a totally blind girl, was asked to make raised-line drawings. Gaia's vision at best was peripheral. She draws out of interest, and has drawn since preschool with encouragement from her mother. She was asked to draw objects and scenes involving depth from a vantage point, eg a table from below, two cars (one behind the other), and two parallel rows of apples (receding from her, on a table top). Gaia represented space in her drawings using T-junctions for overlap, height in the picture plane, parallel projection, and inverse projection. That is, Gaia uses features of systems common in sighted children's drawings. The development of drawing in blind and sighted children may be similar in good measure because haptics provides access to many of the same spatial principles as vision.

D'Angiulli et al (1998 Scandinavian Journal of Psychology39 187–190) found blind and sighted (blindfolded) children identified common objects in raised-outline drawings explored haptically, and corrected themselves without feedback. The self-correction suggests that participants can assess the extent to which the referents they suggest as possible identifications fit the haptic pictures. Indeed, when we asked subjects to identify haptic pictures, and to judge how well the referents they mentioned fitted the pictures, their fit judgments predicted the accuracy of their suggestions. Also, when one group of subjects offered the suggestions and another group assessed the fit of the suggestions to the pictures, the fit judgments predicted the accuracy of the suggestions. Further, good fit predicted successful recognition memory. In addition, both high and low fit judgments were made confidently, so the range of confidence judgments was smaller than the range of fit judgments. Finally, visual judgments of fit by one group predicted the level of success of the suggestions from another (haptic) group. In sum, subjects assess their suggested identifications appropriately, most likely on the basis of object shape criteria, outlined surface edges, and use of a vantage point.

Outline drawings in a raised form were made by a blind woman, Tracy, who has been blind from very early in life. Highly practiced in drawing, she reports she is largely self-taught. To invoke matters of projection, she was asked to represent an object with faces slanting away from the observer, a fixed array from different vantage points, and sets of objects in depth. In particular, she drew a cube balanced on a vertex, three objects from different vantage points, receding rows of glasses, and a house. Her drawings included features of parallel and polar projection. Her use of these features may reflect an appreciation of direction from a vantage point, which observers deal with via haptics in everyday tasks. Tracy may have advanced drawing-development skills common to the blind and the sighted.

Esref is a congenitally totally blind man, practiced in drawing. He was asked to draw solid and wire cubes situated in several places around his vantage point. He used foreshortening of receding sides and convergence of obliques, in approximate one-point perspective. We note that haptics provides information about the direction of objects—the basis of perspective.

Tropes using unresolved contradiction to specify attitudes can be found in several kinds of figurative language. Examples of metaphor, irony, understatement and tautology are presented. In metaphor, the discrepancy between the ordinary reference of a term and its metaphoric use can be an instrument of specifying an attitude for the receiver. Unresolved contradiction can be useful in comprehending metaphors in which (1) there is a paradox, (2) the subject is implicit, and (3) the subject is ill-defined. In irony and understatement, the gap between what is literally said and the sender's belief can communicate the sender's attitude towards the subject matter. By being literally repetitious and non-informative, tautology can express attitudes of self-justification, conservatism and the like. We conclude that contradictions implied at the surface level of a trope need not always be resolved for the trope to be properly understood.