142022 Comprehension Conversation Pragmatics Structure Maxims Implicatures Indirect

1/4/2022 • Comprehension » Conversation ◊ Pragmatics ◊ Structure – Maxims – Implicatures – Indirect speech acts • Pinker’s theory Study Questions. • Describe some of the maxims or rules of conversation. • Describe three types of converational implicatures.

Comprehension • Conversations » Pragmatics: Making sure people understand what was meant, not what was said. ◊ E. g. , taking attendance. “they won’t be going to class because they want to be there” ◊ Austen’s (1962) description. – Locutionary act -> Actual utterance “Do you feel cold? ” – Illocutionary act -> Interpretation by listener “Turn up the heat, please. ” – Perlocutionary act -> Effect on the listener -> Turns up the heat.

Comprehension • Conversations » Pragmatics ◊ Organization of the speech act (i. e. , illocution) – Constative: Expression of a belief, intending to create a similar belief in the listener. E. g, I conclude the issue is solved (assert, predict, suggest, describe, conclude) – Directive: Expressing an interest in the listener’s actions with an intention of using the utterance to provide a reason for it. E. g, I recommend you take Psych 220. (request, question, prohibit, authorize, recommend)

Comprehension • Conversations » Pragmatics ◊ Organization of the speech act (i. e. , illocution) – Commissive: Obligates the speaker to do something. E. g, I promise it won’t happen again (promise, offer) – Acknowledgement: Expressing feelings for the listener, whether true or socially expected. E. g, Congratulations on passing your Psych 220 exam. (apologize, congratulate, thank, refuse)

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Turn taking ◊ Sachs model: Three rules – Current speaker selects next speaker – If not (1), then next speaker self-selects – If not (2), then current speaker continues ◊ Cues to turn taking – Assent terms: Current speaker is to continue (Yes, Okay, Uh-Uh, Mmmnph, etc. ) Ratifying repitition: Repeating the last word/phrase said Adjacency pairs (e. g. , a direct question)

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Cooperative Principal: participants in a conversation assume that everyone is following the rules and contributions are sincere and appropriate. ◊ Conversational maxims (Grice, 1975) – Quantity: Being informative Parent: Where did you go? Teenager: Out. Parent: What did you do? Teenager: Nothin’. – But not too informative: Can I borrow a pen? Can I borrow a pen with ink in it?

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Conversational maxims (Grice, 1975) – Quality. Tell the truth. Parent: Did you just walk in the kitchen and steal a cookie? Child: No. (he ran into the kitchen and stole a cookie). – Relevance. Topic Maintenance: sticking to the topic and being relevant – Manner. Be polite. Be clear. Eschew obfuscation by circumventing sesquipedalian oration.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Conversational implicature (Grice) – Implicature: what is suggested in an utterance even though it is not strictly implied (i. e. , it is entailed) Mary had a baby and got married - Suggests that Mary had the baby before she got married … although not necessarily in that order - Cancels the implicature

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Three types of conversational implicature 1. Violating a conversation maxim to convey additional meaning Student A: What did you think of last night’s lecture? Student B: Well, I’m sure he was speaking English. – Violates the maxim of quantity -> Assuming the cooperative rule is being followed, there must be additional meaning in the utterance. -> Implicature: the lecture was confusing.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Three types of conversational implicature 2. A desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in the violation of one to invoke the other Student: Where is Dr. Mc. Cormick? Marion: He is either in his office or at home. – Maxims of Quality and Quantity are in conflict, Quantity is violated thereby invoking Quality -> Implicature: she does not have the evidence to give an exact answer.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Three types of conversational implicature 3. Invoking a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. Tourist: Do you know where I can get some gas? Local: There’s gas station just around the corner. – Invokes Maxim of Relevance - Implicature: the gas station is open and one can purchase gas there.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Indirect speech acts (Searle) – Communicating to the listener more than you are saying by relying on mutually shared background information, and the general powers of reason and inference. – Primary illocutionary act: the indirect illocutionary act. – Secondary illocutionary act: the direct illocutionary act realized in the literal interpretation of the sentence. Speaker A: We should leave for the show now or we will be late. Speaker B: I’m not ready yet. -> Primary: Rejection of A’s suggestion -> Secondary: B is not ready.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) – Why do we use innuendo? > Mae West: “Why don't you come on up and see me sometime -- when I've got nothin' on but the radio. ” > How to bribe a Maitre d’ after you've been declined a table (from Bluenile. com, a luxury gift Web site). “ Shake hands with the man in question, and simply slide the folded bill into his palm. Then ask him, if it would not be a bother, to please check one more time. . . ” > Bruce Feiler’s Gourmet Magazine assignment “ I hope you can fit us in”

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) – Extortion <Clip from Monty Python - Nice army you have here>

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) – Cooperation is only part of of human communication – Indirect speech often occurs in situations of conflict -> Diplomacy, extortion, veiled threats, bribery, and sexual harassment happen during conflict – Three parts to Pinker’s theory 1. Plausible deniability 2. Relationship negotiation 3. Language as a digital medium

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 1. Plausible deniability <Clip from Fargo (1996): Bribery will get you nowhere>

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 1. Plausible deniability » Game theory and pay-off matrices -> Bribing a traffic cop Dishonest officer Honest officer Don’t Bribe Traffic Ticker Bribe Go Free Arrest for bribery

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 1. Plausible deniability » Using innuendo to bribe a traffic cop Dishonest officer Honest officer Implicate Bribe Go Free Traffic Ticker Don’t Bribe Traffic Ticker Bribe Go Free Arrest for bribery

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 2. Relationship negotiation » What if there are no legal consequences? If you could pass the salt, that would be awesome! » Three distinct types of relationships (Fiske) 1. Dominance/ authority 2. Communal sharing 3. Reciprocity

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 2. Relationship negotiation » Bribing a Maitre d’ Dishonest Maitre d’ Honest Maitre d’ Don’t Bribe No seat/ Long wait Bribe Seat/ Short wait Awkwardness

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 2. Relationship negotiation » Using innuendo to bribe a Maitre d’ Dishonest Maitre d’ Honest Maitre d’ Implicate Bribe Seat/ Short wait No seat/ Long wait Don’t Bribe No seat/ Long wait Bribe Seat/ Short wait Awkwardness

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 3. Language as a digital medium <Clip from When Harry Met Sally (1989): Its out there…>

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) 3. Language as a digital medium I] Overt propositions are perceived as certain (not merely highly likely), implicatures are less than certain II] Implicatures are context dependent, direct speech is context-free. - Overt propositions are “out-there” III] Indirect speech provides shared individual knowledge, direct speech provides common knowledge - Shared: B knows she has turned down an overture A knows B has turned down an overture - Common: A knows that B knows that A knows that B ….