Comprehension Conversation Pragmatics Structure Empirical investigations Study Questions

• Comprehension » Conversation ◊ Pragmatics ◊ Structure ◊ Empirical investigations Study Questions. • Describe some of the maxims or rules of conversation. • Describe three types of converational implicatures. 2/20/2021

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 1. Current speaker selects next speaker 2. If not (1), then next speaker self-selects 3. If not (2), then current speaker continues ◊ Cues to turn taking – Assent terms: Current speaker is to continue (Yes, Okay, Uh-Uh, Mmmnph, etc. ) Ø Ratifying repitition: Repeating the last word/phrase said Ø 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 1. Student A: What did you think of last night’s lecture? 2. Student B: Well, I’m sure he was speaking English. 1. Violates the Maxim of Quantity 1. -> Assuming the cooperative is being followed, there must be additional meaning in the utterance. 2. -> 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 1. Student: Where is Dr. Mc. Cormick? 2. Marion: He is either in his office or at home. 1. Maxims of Quality and Quantity are in conflict, Quantity is violated thereby invoking Quality 1. -> 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. 1. Invokes Maxim of Relevance 1. - 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. . . "

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker) – Extortion Monty Python sketch available at: http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=DRm 5 Wcj. Oik. Q

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 1. Game theory and pay-off matrices 2. -> 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 1. 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 1. What if there are no legal consequences? 2. If you could pass the salt, that would be awesome! 1. 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 1. 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 1. Using innuendo to bribe a Maitre d’ Dishonest officer Honest officer 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 1. I] Overt propositions are perceived as certain (not merely highly likely), implicatures are less than certain 2. II] Implicatures are context dependent, direct speech is contextfree. 3. - Overt propositions are “out-there” 4. III] Indirect speech provides shared individual knowledge, direct speech provides common knowledge 5. - Shared: B knows she has turned down an overture 6. A knows B has turned down an overture 7. - Common: A knows that B knows that A knows

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Online activity during conversation – Direct theory: We tailor our conversation to an appropriate level of compexity. -> First order theory of mind – Isaacs & Clark (1987) – References in conversation B. How long y'gonna be here? A. Uh-not too long. Uh just til un Monday. B. Til-oh ya mean like a week from tomorrow. A. Yah B. (Continues)

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Online activity during conversation – Three processes used to accommodate for expertise 1. Assessing expertise Dr. : Could you contract your deltoid, please Patient: My what? 2. Supplying expertise Dr. : Could you raise your arm out sideways, please Patient: Ouch! Dr. It looks like its your deltoid. 3. Acquiring expertise > Novice seeks out information

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Online activity during conversation – Method Ø New Yorkers (experts) and Non New Yorkers (novices) Ø Describe 16 postcards to partner who must pick the right one from his/ her deck of 16 cards Director: Tenth is the Cidicorp (sic), Citicorp Building? Matcher: Is that with the slanted top? Director: Yes. Matcher: M’kay.

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Online activity during conversation – Results

Comprehension • Conversations » Structure ◊ Online activity during conversation – Results

Comprehension • Conversations » Theories about our conversational partners ◊ Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about you. -> Second order theory of mind A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self” next term. B: Isn’t that just a bunch of boring brain stuff? Direct theory: He doesn’t know much about social psychology!

Comprehension • Conversations » Theories about our conversational partners ◊ Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about you. A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self” next term. B: Me too! Christie gave me some readings that she thought I would like. Direct theory: He knows the professor by first name and is bragging about it. Second-order theory: He thinks I will be impressed that he calls the professor “Christie”.

Comprehension • Conversations » Theories about our conversational partners ◊ Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about you. A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self” next term. B: Maybe you shouldn’t take that class, I hear it is pretty tough and there is a lot of reading. Direct theory: What an insulting <insert dysphemism here> ! Second-order theory: He is concerned about my welfare…but doesn’t think I am very smart