Pragmatics of deception Ole Togeby Scandinavian Institute Aarhus

Pragmatics of deception Ole Togeby Scandinavian Institute Aarhus University AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 1 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Plan I. Introduction II. Text interpretation III. Communication failures IV. Presupposition failures V. False implicatures AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 2 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Definition Deceive : ‘to cause to believe what is untrue’, implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness; deception may involve lies, but is something different from lying. Synonyms: beguile, bluff, cant, cheat, con, delude, fake, feign, fool, fox, frustrate by underhandedness, humour, hypocrisy, kid, lead astray, mislead, pass off, pretend, seduce, swindle, take in, trick. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 3 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

In this paper I’ll define the differences between the following related phenomena: Obscurity: infelicitous reference and predication Lying: false predication Be mistaken: unintended untruth: Deceiving: false presupposition Leading astray: false implicating Seduction: infelicitous illocutionary force AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 4 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Pragmatic methodology All these concepts are pragmatic phenomena that can only be discussed when situated, that is to say when they occur as part of a situation in which all parts and elements have a fixed and known value, e. g. Who are the hearers? What do they know? What are their interests, and the speaker’s interest? And so on. Consequently I’ll tell a couple of stories (in which all communication factors have fixed values) and only discuss communication failures committed in utterances made in such well defined situations. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 5 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example: The Blue-eyed Boy ‘When I was in Vienna twenty years ago, ’ she began, ‘a pretty boy with big blue eyes made a great stir there by dancing on a rope blindfolded. He danced with wonderful grace and skill, and the blindfolding was genuine, the cloth being tied around his eyes by a person out of the audience. His performance was the great sensation of the season, and he was sent for to dance before the Emperor and Empress, the archdukes and archduchesses, and the court. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 6 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Blue-eyed Boy The great oculist, Professor Heimholz, was present. He had been sent for by the Emperor, since everybody was discussing the problem of clairvoyance. But in the end of the show he rose up and called out: “Your Majesty, ” he said, in great agitation, “and your Imperial Highnesses, this is all humbug, and a cheat. ” ‘ “It cannot be humbug, ” said the court oculist, “I have myself tied the cloth around the boy’s eyes most conscientiously. ” AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 7 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Blue-eyed Boy ‘ “It is all humbug and a cheat, " the great professor indignantly insisted. “That child was born blind. ” ’ Isak Dinesen 1934: “The Deluge at Nordeney” in Seven Gothic Tales AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 8 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 2: The Emperor’s New Clothes Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. (…) one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colours and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 9 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their travelling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night. "I'd like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth, " the Emperor thought, "I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers, " the Emperor decided. (…) So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms. "Heaven help me, " he thought as his eyes flew wide open, "I can't see anything at all". But he did not say so. "Don't hesitate to tell us what you think of it, " said one of the weavers. "Oh, it's beautiful -it's enchanting. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 10 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. (…) He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn't see anything. (…) He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colours and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, "It held me spellbound. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 11 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. (…) "What's this? " thought the Emperor. "I can't see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! - Oh! It's very pretty, " he said. "It has my highest approval. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 12 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, "These are the trousers, here's the coat, and this is the mantle, " naming each garment. "All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that's what makes them so fine. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 13 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 14 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes "But he hasn't got anything on, " a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle? " said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on. " "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 15 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor’s New Clothes The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on. " So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor’s New Clothes, a translation of "Keiserens nye Klæder" 1837 by Jean Hersholt. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 16 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 3: Three fools should pass a test to be discharged from the madhouse. The first one was asked: With what body part do you make your thinking? He pointed at his fist and said: I use this one, and he was sent back to the madhouse. The second one was asked the same; he pointed at his fist and was sent back to the madhouse. Then the third fool was asked; he said: With my head and he was therefore discharged. Then they asked him: How could you figure it out? He pointed at his fist and said: I used this one. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 17 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 4: Examination A candidate at the examination desk draws a question, and whispers to the examiner while the co-examiner overhears it: This is not the question that we have arranged that I should have Alternative version: This question is not one that we have arranged I should have. Example 5: The Bricklayer A poor bricklayer brought a big lunch pack with him, but he was embarrassed only to be able to afford one type of filling for his sandwiches, viz. cheese. So when he had finished nine cheese sandwiches and set about eating the tenth and last one, he said: Now we end up with the cheese sandwich. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 18 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 6: Freud In 1938 the Nazis had promised Sigmund Freud an exit visa from Austria on condition that he sign a declaration purporting that he had been ”treated by the German authorities and particularly by the Gestapo with all the respect and consideration due to my scientific reputation”. When the Gestapo official brought the document for his signature, Freud asked if he would be allowed to add one more sentence. Obviously sure of his one-up position, the official agreed, and Freud wrote in his own handwriting: “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone”. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 19 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

II. Text interpretation I. Introduction II. Text interpretation III. Communication failures IV. Presupposition failures V. False implicatures AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 20 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Non-linguistic deception Lying is always linguistic, while leading astray and deceiving can be linguistic or not linguistic. It is possible to mislead someone only by deceitful behaviour: e. g. in The Emperors new Clothes: They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their travelling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night. The blue-eyed boy did not lie, but pretended without words to be sighted by being blindfolded In this paper I’ll only talk about linguistic deception. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 21 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Inferential text interpretation Regular text interpretation is a process of building a mental model of the situation talked about in the text and relate it to the model of the current situation. The mental model is build by the hearers by 1) determining what is said from what is pronounced, and is related to the current situation by 2) determining what is communicated by what is said AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 22 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

A model of interpretation process What is communicated Inference of what is implicated Integration of what is presupposed Inferential Accessible Optional What is said – what is said Unconscous Involuntary obligatory Extraction the relevant implications Enrichment of elliptic expressions Disambiguation of lexical items Recognition of reference What is pronounced–what is pronounced AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 23 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Inferential text interpretation If we take the oral situation as basic, we can thus distinguish between: 1) what is pronounced (known as what is explicit) in uttering a text, 2) what is said by what is pronounced (called the explicature or the coded meaning), and 3) what is implicitly communicated by what is said (both presupposition and implicature). AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 24 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Inferential text interpretation On another dimension we can distinguish between a) information that the speaker indicates as something that should be taking for granted, b) information that the speaker states as new in order to make the audience take it in It gives six type of information: names, predicates, what is named (the reference), what is predicated, what is presupposed and the implicature. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 25 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Types of information Information Taken for granted Stated What is pronounced Names (definite noun phrases) Predicates (verb phrases, adjectives, adverbials) What is said in the proposition What is named (the recognizable reference in the mental model) What is predicated as relevant to the audience What is communicate d What is presupposed by the The implicature of the utterance of the proposition speaker’s claim of relevance of the predicated information AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 26 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Terminological note The verb imply and the noun implication is used about entailments (logically necessary conclusive information). The fact that the child was born blind implies ‘that he was and had always been lacking the power to see’. The Verb implicate and the noun implicature is used about pragmatically generated, but logically cancellable information. The answer “-There is a garage round the corner” to the car driver’s remark “-I am out of petrol” implicates that ’you can probably get some petrol there’. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 27 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Terminological note In Grice’s original article Logic and Conversation 1967 the term conventional implicature is the name for ’what is presupposed’, and what I here call implicature Grice calls conversational implicature. Grice’s terminology did not catch on, however, so I will here use Levinson’s terminology: Presuppositions are conventional, semantic and triggered by lexical items and syntactic constructions when they are uttered in a proposition. Implicatures are conversational, pragmatic and triggered by the guarantee of relevance for the current purpose of talk exchange, given by the utterance of a speech act. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 28 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said ( the explicature) is defined as follows: What is said is information about the stated relations between named things, information that the audience extract from what is pronounced and its context, in order to grasp the meaning of the whole proposition that can be ascribed truth value. This extraction takes place solely on the basis of knowledge of the grammatical rules and the lexicon of the language AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 29 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said This extraction of what is said from what is pronounced consists of four operations: The audience must: 1) recognize what the pronounced names (np’s and adverbials) refer to, 2) disambiguate (monosemiate) the lexical items and the syntactic constructions, 3) enrich the meaning of the proposition by the information omitted by ellipsis, and 4) extract the logical entailment (the implications) of the proposition that are necessary for the building of a mental model of the situation AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 30 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said 1) Recognition of what the pronounced names refer to. In When I was in Vienna twenty years ago, ’ she began, the audience must recognize that I (like she) refers to ’Miss Malin Nat-og-Dag’, and twenty years ago refers to ’the year 1815’ (because it is said in 1835). AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 31 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said 2) Disambiguation of lexical items and syntactical constructions. The readers have to decide that sensation, in this context, means ‘a sensational event’, and not a sort of ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’; sensation as a lexical item can have both meanings. In the construction by dancing on a rope blindfolded it has to be recognized that it is ‘the dancing boy’ that is ‘blindfolded’, and not ‘the rope’ although this attachment pattern is possible too, compare with: by dancing on a rope fastened to a tree AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 32 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said 3) enrichment of the meaning of the proposition by the information omitted by ellipsis He danced with wonderful grace and skill has to be enriched with the information ‘on the rope’; it has been left out by ellipsis. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 33 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is said 4) Extraction of the logical entailments (implications) of the proposition that are necessary for the building of a mental model of the situation. From the fact ‘that the child was born blind’ the readers have to extract the implication ‘that he was and had always been lacking the power to see’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 34 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is communicated The next step in the inferential text interpretation process is to determine what is communicated by what is said in uttering the speech act in a specific situational setting. It involves for members of the audience: a) accepting and integrating in the mental model what is presupposed, and b) inferring what is implicated. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 35 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed Presupposition (called a conventional implicature by Grice) is defined as: What is presupposed is the pieces of information that the speaker by lexical and syntactic choices signals to the audience that they must take as given (and incorporate in their mental model if it isn’t already there) in order to understand what is said as part of existing mental model of the situation talked about. What falls outside the scope of the sentential negation. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 36 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed Normally what is presupposed is signalled by lexical items, e. g. all verbs of transition (perfective verbs) presuppose that the previous state was in force when the transition sets in: In But in the end of the show he rose up and called out: It is presupposed ‘that he was sitting’ when ‘he rose up’, although it has not been said explicitly. But this is trivial and uncontroversial and is noticed as something it is necessary to incorporate. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 37 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed A well known example of presupposition is: When did you stop beating your wife? In this example your wife presupposes that the addressee is married, stop presupposes that the process or activity was in force when it stopped; When presupposes that the information in the rest of the sentence is true. If the addressee hasn’t stopped beating his wife, has not ever beaten her, is not married, or is not male, what is presupposed is not given. This is called bullying, which is a sort of presupposition failure. (Harder & Kock 1976) AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 38 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed It is often said that the verb know presupposes the truth of what is known. When uttering the sentence The professor knew that the boy was born blind the speaker takes for granted that it is a fact ‘that the boy was born blind’. And with the sentence: The court oculist did not know that the boy was born blind it is also taken for granted ‘that the boy was born blind’. In this way it is a simple test for what is presupposed that it is outside the scope of the sentential negation. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 39 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed Conjunctions and adverbials can presuppose information too, e. g. but presupposes that there is an opposition between the preceding and the subsequent word: The waiter is negro but well-groomed. presupposes that there is an opposition between ‘being negro’ and ‘being well-groomed’ – an example of bullying which reveals the prejudice of the speaker, a controversial prejudice which is also forced on the audience; they cannot react against it, unless they impolitely interrupt the flow of information by discussing something that is not relevant for the message of the utterance. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 40 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

If information bullied on the audience is neither given nor controversial, the result is only confusion: • Den kvinde, der blev fundet i Fredericia centrum sent fredag aften, er nu identificeret. Hun er en 28årig tysker, der kommer fra en institution i Hamborg. Den retarderede kvinde blev fundet i en rundkørsel ved Norgesgade ved 23 -tiden fredag aften, men hun har intet sprog. • The woman found i Fredericia Centre late Friday night, has been identified. She is a 28 -year-old German from Hamburg. The mentally retarded woman was found in a roundabout near Norgesgade about 11 o’clock Friday night, but she has no language • Politiken 8. 4. 2003 I side 6. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 41 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is presupposed Here it is presupposed that there is an opposition between ’to be found in a round about’ and ’to have no language’, a statement that is neither given nor controversial and must be looked on as a communication failure. (It is probably the case that the sub-editor of the paper has cut the last sentence which could have been: så man kan ikke finde ud af hvordan hun er kommet frem til rundkørslen i Fredericia. (So it was impossible to find out how she has come to the round about in Fredericia) AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 42 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated Information Taken for granted Stated What is pronounced Names (definite noun phrases) Predicates (verb phrases, adjectives, adverbials) What is said in the proposition What is named (the recognizable reference) What is predicated as relevant to the audience What is communicated What is presupposed by the utterance of the proposition The implicature of the speaker’s claim of relevance of the predicated information AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 43 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated (the implicature) Grice’s conversational implicature, which I suggest called underforståelse in Danish, is defined: What is implicated is the unspoken information that the members of the audience have licence to infer from what is said in order to see the relevance for them against the background of the current situation. By uttering the speech act the speaker issues a guarantee for the relevance for them of what is said, for the accepted purpose of talk exchange. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 44 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated Optimal relevance is achieved if what is said is the shortest formulation of the truth and the whole truth about the situation talked about, such as required for the accepted purpose of talk exchange. A: - I am out of petrol. B: - There is a garage round the corner Example from Grice 1975 By B’s speech act it is guaranteed that it provides a piece of information relevant for A in the current situation, and that it is the whole truth. A can now infer that she presumably can get some petrol there, but that B does not know for certain (otherwise he would have said so). AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 45 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated The truth of the implicature is – contrary to what holds for presupposition – cancellable; B cancel the implicature ‘that you can have petrol at the garage’ by adding: B: - but perhaps it is not open AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 46 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated I am passing through the customs (where I can import up to two liters of spirits) carrying a bag with six bottles of aqua vitae. When asked by the customs officer I declare: I have two bottles of aqua vitae in my bag. That is not a blatant lie, because if I have six bottles it is a logical implication that I have two too. It is in fact the truth and nothing but the truth. But it is not the whole truth, and that (the whole truth relevant for accepted purpose of talk exchange) is exactly what I have issued a guarantee for when uttering my remark. So I am with justice accused for cheating (but not for lying). AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 47 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated Many remarkable examples will show both presupposition and implicature; in the example: The waiter is negro but well-groomed it is, as mentioned, presupposed that there is an opposition between for a waiter ‘to be negro’ and ‘well-groomed’, but it is at the same time implicated: ’and therefore we can have our lunch at this restaurant’. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 48 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated It is an implication that when the speaker introduces an opposition by means of the word but, the conclusion is drawn from the second of the pieces of information coordinated by but. The person who says: The waiter is well-groomed but negro implicates: ‘and therefore we cannot have our lunch at this restaurant’. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 49 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated ‘a pretty boy with big blue eyes made a great stir there by dancing on a rope blindfolded. Here it is implicated, but not presupposed, ‘that the boy had the capacity to see (if he was not blindfolded). If he was born blind it would not be relevant that he was blindfolded. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 50 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated Implicatures always involve some kind of reasoning, the implicature being either the premise or the conclusion, sometimes both: In the example about the waiter the implicature is the conclusion. Here is an example where the non-trivial implicature is the premise: Two university teachers meet in the corridor: A: - Where are you going? B: - To the departmental meeting. A: - But, it’s only for the research-active staff. Example from Carston 2002 AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 51 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated departmental meetings are only for the researchactive staff. {You are not research-active}. {You have no need to go there} Here one premise is implicated, and the conclusion is the implicature of the word but. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 52 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated In the case of A: - But, it’s only for the research-active staff the implicature is offensive and insulting. In other cases implicatures are naïve and symptomatic; in a book with children’s scribbling one can read: Den første tand kommer I munden The first tooth comes in the mouth. The reasoning about the implicature is something like: The first tooth comes in the mouth. {the other teeth come somewhere else, e. g. on the knee {The First tooth is the best (working) tooth} AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 53 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

What is implicated On a box with Italian lasagne it could be read: Denne lasagne er forkogt. Den skal ikke koges i 20 minutter i letsaltet vand. (This lasagne is parboiled. It shall not be boiled for 20 minutes in lightly salted water). Here it is implicated that ’it is to be boiled for 20 minutes in fully salted water’. If the lasagne should not be boiled at all, the formulation should have been: It need not be boiled. The actual formulation is not the shortest and most economical possible for the current purpose of talk exchange. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 54 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

I. Introduction II. Text interpretation III. Communication failures IV. Presupposition failures V. False implicatures AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 55 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Types of false information Information Taken for granted Stated What is pronounced Infelicitous names: obscurity Infelicitous predicates: obscurity What is said in the Infelicitous reference: proposition obscurity False predication is a blatant lie (unlawful) or a mistake What is communicated False implicature could be called leading stray (seduction) False presupposition forms deception AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 56 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Indirect speech acts Some people say that Speech act can be indirect. At a dinner table a person says: Can you pass the salt! which has the form of a question, but the illocutionary force of a request. The question of indirect speech acts was discussed at conference in Copenhagen some years ago in which both Johnson-Laird, Fodor and Searle were participating. At that occasion I revealed to John the true meaning of his example: Can you pass the salt! the meaning being: ‘Are you able to travel through the salt desert’. So what is communicated by a speech act is always indirect – that is inferred from what is said. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 57 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Obscurity is defined as infelicitous naming, reference or predication: Two young men, one of them carrying a pistol, were caught by a police man. The other man said to the one with the gun: Let him have it! And then he shot the police officer. Later in court the man without the gun said that his remark Let him have it! was meant to mean: ‘Give it to him’, but the gunman had understood it as meaning: ‘Shoot him!’. That is an example of obscurity, both the reference of it and the meaning of let have are infelicitous. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 58 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Obscurity Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said , "These are the trousers, here's the coat, and this is the mantle, " naming each garment. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 59 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Blatant lie Example of a blatant lie, defined as false predication: Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an , "These are the trousers, here's the coat, and this is the mantle, " naming each garment. arm as if they were holding something. They said AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 60 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

IV. Presupposition failures I. Introduction II. Text interpretation III. Communication failures IV. Presupposition failures V. False implicatures AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 61 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Types of false information Information Taken for granted Stated What is pronounced Infelicitous names: obscurity Infelicitous predicates: obscurity What is said in the Infelicitous reference: proposition obscurity False predication is a blatant lie (unlawful) or a mistake What is communicated False implicature could be called leading stray (seduction) False presupposition forms deception AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 62 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures Peter Harder & Christian Kock 1976: Theory of presupposition Failure Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlaghas invented the following notational system: S+ indicates that the presupposition of a utterance belongs to the background assumptions of the speaker, and H+ that it belongs to the background assumptions of the hearer; S- and Hthat it does not belong to their respective background assumptions. HS+ indicates that H assumes that it belongs to the background assumptions of S, and SHS+ that S is aware of that. In the same way for SH- and HSH-, and so on for SHSH+ and HSHS-. So the standard situation has got the following notation: S+ H+ SH+ HS+ SHS+ HSH+ SHSH+ HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 63 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures Failure is the occurrence of a minus sign in the diagram. The first failure is when the presupposition does not belong to the background assumption of the hearer: H S+ H SH HS SHS HSH SHSH HSHS He pointed at his fist and said: I used this one. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 64 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures The second deviation is called insincerity: the presupposition does not belong to the background assumptions of S: S- H+ SH HS SHS HSH SHSH HSHS Now it is time for the cheese sandwich. H: fellow bricklayers; PR: there is only one identifiable cheese sandwich AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 65 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: mistakes A mistake is defined as a situation in which one party has a false assumption about the other party’s back-ground assumptions: H- & SH+, e. g. : Naïveté on the part of S: S+ H SH+ HS+ SHS+ HSH+ SHSH+ HSHS+ He pointed at his fist and said: I use this one. PR: ‘the power to think is located in the fist’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 66 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: name-dropping Name-dropping is intentional, achieved mistake of H: S+ H SHHS+ SHS+ HSH+ SHSH+ HSHS+ At that occasion I revealed to John the true meaning of the sentence: Can you pass the salt! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 67 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: name-dropping Name-dropping can be abortive if it is seen through by H: S+ H SHHS+ SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS+ SHSHS+ HSHSH+ At that occasion I revealed to John the true meaning of the sentence: Can you pass the salt! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 68 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: feigning Feigning: is a situation in which S is not sincere, but assumes that H is not aware of this: S- & SHS+ S- H SH HS SHS+ HSH SHSH HSHS "Oh, it's beautiful - it's enchanting. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 69 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: feigning Achieved feigning: S- H SH- HS+ SHS+ HSH+ SHSH+ HSHS+ "Don't hesitate to tell us what you think of it, " said one of the weavers. PR: there is cloth on the loom AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 70 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Feigning A poor bricklayer brought a big lunch pack with him, but he was embarrassed only to be able to afford one type of filling for his sandwiches, viz. cheese. So when he had finished nine cheese sandwiches and set about eating the tenth and last one, he said: Now we end up with the cheese sandwich. PR: ‘There were various sandwiches and only one identifiable with cheese’ SSH+ SHSH+ H+ HSH+ HSHS+ insincerity non-solidarity feigning AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 71 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: feigning Feigning seen through: SH SHHS SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS+ At that occasion I revealed to John the true meaning of the sentence: Can you pass the salt! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 72 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: trust Mistrusted naïveté (mistakes from both parties): S+ H SH+ HS SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS+ At that occasion I revealed to John the true meaning of the sentence: Can you pass the salt! AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 73 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures Solidarity: no non-solidarity Non-solidarity (ordinary): S presupposes something but nevertheless assumes that H does not recognize it, marked with yellow, e. g. name-dropping S+ H SH- HS SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 74 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: solidarity Non-solidarity (humouring): S presupposes something not part of his own background assumptions, but nevertheless assumes that H does recognize it, marked with yellow S- H SH+ HS SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS Now we end up with the cheese sandwich AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 75 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Rhetorical behaviour: S is not sincere and expects H to be aware of this: S- H SH HS SHS- HSH SHSH HSHS A poor bricklayer brought a big lunch pack with him… S: I, H: You, PR: ‘There in fact was a bricklayer’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 76 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Rhetorical behaviour: H is aware of insincerity but misses rhetorical behaviour: S- H SH HS SHS- HSH SHSH HSHS+ jkjkj AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 77 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Rhetorical behaviour: H misses both rhetorical behaviour and insincerity: S- H SH HS+ SHS- HSH SHSH HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 78 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures Sincerity : S+ Insincerity: S-, marked with blue Mistakes: false beliefs about the other party, marked with red: S- & HS+ or H- & SH+ … One-up-ness: situation when one party is mistaken, the other party is one-up, marked with green Communicative balance: no party is mistaken Non-solidarity (ordinary): S presupposes something but nevertheless assumes that H does not recognize it, marked with yellow: S+ & SH- or S- & SH+ Rhetorical behaviour: S is not sincere and expects H to be aware of this: S- & SHS- Feigning, whenever S believes that H is mistaken, marked with violet: S- & SHS+ and SH- & SHSH+ Suspicion of mistakes: H- & HSH+ ; of deception: HS- & HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 79 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: fun S makes fun of H: S insincere, no mistakes, no solidarity S- H+ SH+ HS SHS- HSH+ SHSH+ HSHS “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone”. PR: the declaration and Freud’s addition are cooperating, the latter being stronger than the former. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 80 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Stylistic behaviour: cynicism: S- H SH- HS SHS- HSH SHSH- HSHS The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on. " So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 81 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Bullying: no mistakes, no solidarity, no suspicion S+ H SH- HS+ SHS+ HSH SHSH- HSHS+ When did you stop beating your wife AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 82 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Deception, whenever S believes that H is mistaken, marked with violet: S- H S H SH HS SHHS SHS+ HSH SHS HSH SHSH HSHS SHSH+ HSHS AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 83 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Deception, achieved: S- H SH HS+ SHS+ HSH SHSH HSHS AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute Deception, aborted SH SH HSSHS+ HSH SHSH HSHS 84 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception "Don't hesitate to tell us what you think of it, " said one of the weavers. H: The Emperor; PR: ‘there is some cloth on the loom’ Deception, achieved (S double one-up): SH SH SHS+ SHSH+ HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 85 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Deception, achieved, and mistake (no one-up): S SH+ SHSH+ HHS+ HSHS+ "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!“ PRESUPPOSED: THE CLOTHES EXIST; HEARERS: EVERYONE IN THE STREETS Everyone in the streets and the windows said, AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 86 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Naive deception, achieved (no one-up-ness): S SH+ SHSH+ HHS+ HSHS+ "Magnificent, " said the two officials already duped. "Just look, Your Majesty, what colours! What a design!" PRESUPPOSED: THERE IS SOME CLOTH; AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 87 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Naïve, abortive deception, (H one-up twice): S SH+ SHSH+ HHSHSH+ HSHS+ "What's this? " thought the Emperor. "I can't see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! - Oh! It's very pretty, “PR: there is some cloth; H: the weavers AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 88 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Deception, achieved (S one-up three times): S+ SH SHSSHSH+ HHSHSH+ HSHS+ To the Emperor he said, "It held me spellbound. “ PR: spellbound menas: ‘I COULDN’T SEE ANYTHING’. Translation better (more funny) than the original: Ja, det er ganske allerkaereste AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 89 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Suspicion of mistakes: H- HSH+ Suspicion of deception: HS- HSHS+ S HS SH HS SH SHS HSH+ SHSH HSHS SHSH AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute H HSHS+ 90 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

V. False implicatures I. Introduction II. Text interpretation III. Communication failures IV. Presupposition failures V. False implicatures AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 91 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Types of false information Information Taken for granted Stated What is pronounced Infelicitous names: obscurity Infelicitous predicates: obscurity What is said in the Infelicitous reference: proposition obscurity False predication is a blatant lie (unlawful) or a mistake What is communicated False implicature could be called leading stray (seduction) False presupposition forms deception AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 92 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

False implicatures are not deceptions. I suggest to call such examples leading astray; it is not unlawful, and can not be accounted for by the SH+ notational system. False implicatures are the stuff jokes are made of AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 93 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

False implicatures Test question With what body part do you make your thinking? IMPLICATED: ‘We don’t know’ Lie With my head IMPLICATED: ‘I am not a fool’ Speak the truth I used this one (pointing at his fist) PRESUPPOSED: ‘You think by the fist’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 94 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Mistakes Speak the truth, but mistaken I used this one (pointing at his fist) PR: ‘The power to think is located in the fist’ S+ SHS+ SHSH+ HHSHS- AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 95 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

False implicatures: decoys in jokes In texts such as jokes, puns, short stories and detective novels, the speaker has seductively (but not lying) implicated certain trivial but untrue state of affaires, that members of the audience more or less unconsciously have integrated in their mental model of the situation talked about. These seducing implicatures are called decoys. In the last sentence but one members of the audience realize that they have met a dead end. They cannot integrate all information they have been told and hold as true, in one consistent mental model. There are self-contradictions. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 96 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Punch-lines Then, at the punch-line, they are forced to make a reversal (peripeti) in their mental model building, to abandon their first interpretation and reinterpret the whole story. When hearing the punch-line, they will have an ahaexperience of what, contrary to what they thought, is the truth about the situation talked about, an experience that is immediate, intuitive and evident. Simon Borchmann 2005 AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 97 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Decoys - Dead ends – Evidential reversal ‘When I was in Vienna twenty years ago, ’ she began, ‘a pretty boy with big blue eyes made a great stir there by dancing on a rope blindfolded. He danced with wonderful grace and skill, and the blindfolding was genuine, the cloth being tied around his eyes by a person out of the audience. His performance was the great sensation of the season, and he was sent for to dance before the Emperor and Empress, the archdukes and archduchesses, and the court. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 98 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Blue-eyed Boy The great oculist, Professor Heimholz, was present. He had been sent for by the Emperor, since everybody was discussing the problem of clairvoyance. But in the end of the show he rose up and called out: “Your Majesty, ” he said, in great agitation, “and your Imperial Highnesses, this is all humbug, and a cheat. ” “It cannot be humbug, ” said the court oculist, “I have myself tied the cloth around the boy’s eyes most conscientiously. ” AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 99 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Blue-eyed Boy “It is all humbug and a cheat, " cheat the great professor indignantly insisted. “That child was born blind. ” ’ Isak Dinesen 1934: “The Deluge at Nordeney” in Seven Gothic Tales AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 100 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

References Aristoteles (350 BC): Poetics Borchmann, Simon, 2005: Funktionel tekstteori og fiktivt fortællende tekster med refleksiv funktion, København Bergler, Edmond 1956: Laughter and the Sense of Humor, New York Carston, Robyn 2002: Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Freud, Sigmund (1906) 1979: Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten, Frankfurt am Main Grice, H. P. (1967) 1975: ”Logic and conversation” in Cole, Peter, and Jerry Morgan, 1975: Syntax and Semantics, vol 3, Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press Peter Harder & Christian Kock 1976: Theory of Presupposition Failure, København: Akademisk Forlag Kant, Immanuel (1781) 1996: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main Koestler, Arthur 1964: The Act of Creation, London Togeby, Ole 2003: Fungerer denne sætning? Funktionel dansk sproglære, København Zijderveld, A. 1976: Humor und Gesellschaft. Eine Soziologie des Humors und des Lachens, Graz Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1969: On Certainty, London Yule, George 1996: Pragmatics, Oxford AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 101 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 102 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Remaining Problems The Harder & Kock theory is very powerful predicting 255 different types of presupposition failure (besides the standard situation). I have shown you some exemplified types, but there are other types predicted, but which I have not found yet. Here comes my preliminary analysis of some of them. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 103 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Harder & Kock theory is very powerful predicting 255 different types of presupposition failure (besides the standard situation). I have shown you some exemplified types, but there are other types, predicted that I have not found yet. Here comes some of them: AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 104 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

To trick someone A candidate at the examination desk draws a question, and whispers to the examiner while the co-examiner overhears it: This is not the question we have arranged I should have H: the examiner; PR: ‘we have arranged another question’ SSHSH+ HHS+ HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute insincerity feigning suspicion of mistake deception 105 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Cheating A candidate at the examination desk draws a question, and whispers to the examiner while the co-examiner overhears it: This is not the question that we have arranged I should have H: the co-examiner; PR: ‘we have arranged another question’ SSHSHS+ SHSH+ HHS+ HSHHSHS+ insincerity non-solidarity feigning deception AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 106 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Perfidy: S- H SH- HS SHS- HSH SHSH+ HSHS ? ? ? ? AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 107 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Presupposition failures: Manipulation (e. g. : bullying) S+ H SH- HS SHS+ HSH SHSH+ HSHS ? ? ? ? AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 108 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

A case study BLADR VIDERE! Der står noget mere spændende på næste side. Havde du bare gjort, som vi bad om. Så ville du ikke have anet noget om de nye Volkswagen modeller med DK-pakker. Du ville ikke have vidst, at en DK-pakke er en vifte af originalt, fabriksmonteret ekstraudstyr. F. eks. til en Golf. Den omfatter Climatic aircondition, justerbar varme i forsæderne, opvarmelige skrinklerdyser og forlygte sprinklere. Havde du bare bladret videre, ville du have troet, at den slags luksus fordyrer en Golf med mange tusinde kroner. Det er jo ikke gratis at køre på 1. klasse. Især ikke her i landet. Så en merpris på 20. 000 kr. må siges at være rimelig, ikke? Men nu er du nået så langt, at du godt kan få sandheden at vide. Vores tyske leverandør har pålagt os at sælge hele pakken for 5. 000, -. Det er 15. 000 kr. lige ned i foret. Eller lige ud af vinduet – alt efter hvilken side man ser det fra. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 109 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

• • • BLADR VIDERE! Der står noget mere spændende på næste side. Havde du bare gjort, som vi bad om. Så ville du ikke have anet noget om de nye Volkswagen modeller med DK-pakker. Du ville ikke have vidst, at en DK-pakke er en vifte af originalt, fabriksmonteret ekstraudstyr. F. eks. til en Golf. Den omfatter Climatic aircondition, justerbar varme i forsæderne, opvarmelige skrinklerdyser og forlygte sprinklere. Havde du bare bladret videre, ville du have troet, at den slags luksus fordyrer en Golf med mange tusinde kroner. Det er jo ikke gratis at køre på 1. klasse. Især ikke her i landet. Så en merpris på 20. 000 kr. må siges at være rimelig, ikke? Men nu er du nået så langt, at du godt kan få sandheden at vide. Vores tyske leverandør har pålagt os at sælge hele pakken for 5. 000, -. Det er 15. 000 kr. lige ned i foret. Eller lige ud af vinduet – alt efter hvilken side man ser det fra. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute • • TURN OVER TO ANOTHER PAGE! There is something much more interesting on the next page. If only you had done what we asked you. Then you would not have known anything about the new Volkswagen models (? ) with DKpackages. You would not have known that a DK-package is a a wide range of extra accessories …. If you had turned over the page, you would have thought that this type of luxury raise the price of a Golf with many thousands of kroner … 110 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

A case study BLADR VIDERE! (Turn over to another page!) Here it is predicated ‘that I, the reader, will turn over the page’, and the illocutionary force is a request to me to make it happen. The direction of fit is from word to world. It is implicated - as in all requests - that it is in the interest of the advertiser that I, the addressee, do so (and in this case it is indicated to be in my interest too, since – as the next sentence says: There is something much more interesting on the next page) But I doubt if the advertiser sincerely wants me to turn over the page and not read the text – since such an advertisement is very expensive So I take it as a sort of rhetorical behaviour, by which the advertiser communicates a request, not to skip, but to read the advertisement. And consequently I do so. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 111 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

A case study Havde du bare gjort, som vi bad om (If only you had done what we asked for). It is implicated (by bare) that ‘you would have been happier if you had done what we asked for’, viz. to turn over the page, and it is (by past tense) presupposed ’that you have not done what we asked you to do’ - and certainly I have not, I didn’t skip the ad. This presupposition is like a punch line. It suddenly becomes evident that I have been double crossed by the advertiser; BLADR VIDERE! should have been taken at face value. I should not have stayed at the page and red this foolish ad. And it is - even through the written medium – a feeling of being deluded by someone with whom I engage in a talk exchange. The advertiser fooled med by a false implicature. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 112 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

A case study Så ville du ikke have anet noget om de nye Volkswagen modeller (Then you would not have known anything about the new Volkswagen models) This is in a way a revolution of the revolution (and we are back where we began), because it is here implicated that I would not have been happy if I had missed all that wonderful information about the cheap extra accessories to the Volkswagen. But that is another story. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 113 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Bladr videre (Turn over the page!) PR: ‘It is in the interest of S that H does it’ S SH SHSH+ HHSHSH+ (? ) HSHS- AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 114 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Sarcasm: “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone”. H: Gestapo official. PR: ‘the two sentences cooperate; the second one being a stronger argument than the first one to the same conclusion: ‘The Gestapo is OK’ S- H+ SH+ HS SHS- HSH SHSH- HSHS AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 115 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor's New Clothes A translation of Hans Christian Andersen's "Keiserens nye Klæder" by Jean Hersholt. Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day, and instead of saying, as one might, about any other ruler, "The King's in council, " here they always said. "The Emperor's in his dressing room. " In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colours and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid. "Those would be just the clothes for me, " thought the Emperor. "If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools. Yes, I certainly must get some of the stuff woven for me right away. " He paid the two swindlers a large sum of money to start work at once. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 116 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

They set up two looms and pretended to weave, though there was nothing on the looms. All the finest silk and the purest old thread which they demanded went into their travelling bags, while they worked the empty looms far into the night. "I'd like to know how those weavers are getting on with the cloth, " the Emperor thought, but he felt slightly uncomfortable when he remembered that those who were unfit for their position would not be able to see the fabric. It couldn't have been that he doubted himself, yet he thought he'd rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth's peculiar power, and all were impatient to find out how stupid their neighbours were. "I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers, " the Emperor decided. "He'll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he's a sensible man and no one does his duty better. " So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms. "Heaven help me, " he thought as his eyes flew wide open, "I can't see anything at all". But he did not say so. Both the swindlers begged him to be so kind as to come near to approve the excellent pattern, the beautiful colours. They pointed to the empty looms, and the poor old minister stared as hard as he dared. He couldn't see anything, because there was nothing to see. "Heaven have mercy, " he thought. "Can it be that I'm a fool? I'd have never guessed it, and not a soul must know. Am I unfit to be the minister? It would never do to let on that I can't see the cloth. " "Don't hesitate to tell us what you think of it, " said one of the weavers. "Oh, it's beautiful -it's enchanting. " The old minister peered through his spectacles. "Such a pattern, what colours!" I'll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it. " "We're pleased to hear that, " the swindlers said. They proceeded to name all the colours and to explain the intricate pattern. The old minister paid the closest attention, so that he could tell it all to the Emperor. And so he did. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 117 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The swindlers at once asked for more money, more silk and gold thread, to get on with the weaving. But it all went into their pockets. Not a thread went into the looms, though they worked at their weaving as hard as ever. The Emperor presently sent another trustworthy official to see how the work progressed and how soon it would be ready. The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn't see anything. "Isn't it a beautiful piece of goods? " the swindlers asked him, as they displayed and described their imaginary pattern. "I know I'm not stupid, " the man thought, "so it must be that I'm unworthy of my good office. That's strange. I mustn't let anyone find it out, though. " So he praised the material he did not see. He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colours and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, "It held me spellbound. " All the town was talking of this splendid cloth, and the Emperor wanted to see it for himself while it was still in the looms. Attended by a band of chosen men, among whom were his two old trusted officials-the ones who had been to the weavers-he set out to see the two swindlers. He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms. "Magnificent, " said the two officials already duped. "Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!" They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff. "What's this? " thought the Emperor. "I can't see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! - Oh! It's very pretty, " he said. "It has my highest approval. " And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn't see anything. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 118 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, "Oh! It's very pretty, " and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead. "Magnificent! Excellent! Unsurpassed!" were bandied from mouth to mouth, and everyone did his best to seem well pleased. The Emperor gave each of the swindlers a cross to wear in his buttonhole, and the title of "Sir Weaver. " Before the procession the swindlers sat up all night and burned more than six candles, to show busy they were finishing the Emperor's new clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. They made cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last they said, "Now the Emperor's new clothes are ready for him. " Then the Emperor himself came with his noblest noblemen, and the swindlers each raised an arm as if they were holding something. They said, "These are the trousers, here's the coat, and this is the mantle, " naming each garment. "All of them are as light as a spider web. One would almost think he had nothing on, but that's what makes them so fine. " "Exactly, " all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, for there was nothing to see. "If Your Imperial Majesty will condescend to take your clothes off, " said the swindlers, "we will help you on with your new ones here in front of the long mirror. " AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 119 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

The Emperor undressed, and the swindlers pretended to put his new clothes on him, one garment after another. They took him around the waist and seemed to be fastening something - that was his train-as the Emperor turned round and round before the looking glass. "How well Your Majesty's new clothes look. Aren't they becoming!" He heard on all sides, "That pattern, so perfect! Those colours, so suitable! It is a magnificent outfit. " Then the minister of public processions announced: "Your Majesty's canopy is waiting outside. " "Well, I'm supposed to be ready, " the Emperor said, and turned again for one last look in the mirror. "It is a remarkable fit, isn't it? " He seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest. The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold. So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success. "But he hasn't got anything on, " a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle? " said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on. " "But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last. The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on. " So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 120 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 3: Three fools should pass a test to be discharged from the madhouse. The first one was asked: With what body part do you make your thinking? He pointed at his fist and said: I use this one, and he was sent back to the madhouse. The second one was asked the same; he pointed at his fist and was sent back to the madhouse. Then the third fool was asked; he said: With my head and he was therefore discharged. Then they asked him: How could you figure it out? He pointed at his fist and said: I used this one. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 121 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 4: Examination A candidate at the examination desk draws a question, and whispers to the examiner while the co-examiner overhears it: This question is not one that we have arranged I should have. This is not the question that we have arranged that I should have Example 5: The Bricklayer A poor bricklayer brought a big lunch pack with him, but he was embarrassed only to be able to afford one type of filling for his sandwiches, viz. cheese. So when he had finished nine cheese sandwiches and set about eating the tenth and last one, he said: Now it is time for the cheese sandwich. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 122 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Example 6: Freud In 1938 the Nazis had promised Sigmund Freud an exit visa from Austria on condition that he sign a declaration purporting that he had been ”treated by the German authorities and particularly by the Gestapo with all the respect and consideration due to my scientific reputation”. When the Gestapo official brought the document for his signature, Freud asked if he would be allowed to add one more sentence. Obviously sure of his one-up position, the official agreed, and Freud wrote in his own handwriting: “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone”. AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 123 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27

Deception Insincerity: S Mistakes: false beliefs about the other party: S- & HS+ or H- & SH+ One-up-ness: only one party is mistaken, the other party is one-up, otherwise: Communicative balance: no party is mistaken Non-solidarity (ordinary): S presupposes something but nevertheless assumes that H does not recognize it, marked with: S+ & SH- or S- & SH+ Rhetorical behaviour, acting, irony: S is not sincere and expects H to be aware of this: S- & SHS Feigning and deception, whenever S believes that H is mistaken: S- & SHS+ and SH- & SHSH+ Suspicion of mistakes: H- & HSH+ ; of deception: HS- & HSHS+ AARHUS UNIVERSITY Scandinavian Institute 124 Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26 -27