Pragmatics of deception
Ole Togeby
Scandinavian Institute
Aarhus University
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.”
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
16
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Example 3: Three fools
 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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”.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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–what is pronounced
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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).
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
What is presupposed by the
communicated utterance of the proposition
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
The implicature of the
speaker’s claim of relevance
of the predicated information
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’.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
28
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
What is said
 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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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).
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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 not noticed as something it is necessary
to incorporate.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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)
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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)
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
43
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
What is implicated
 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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).
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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 can cancel
the implicature ‘that you can have petrol at the
garage’ by adding:

B: - but perhaps it is not open
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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).
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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}
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
proposition
Infelicitous reference:
obscurity
False predication is a blatant
lie (unlawful) or a mistake
What is
communicated
False presupposition
forms deception
False implicature could be
called leading stray
(seduction)
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
57
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Obscurity
 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
proposition
Infelicitous reference:
obscurity
False predication is a blatant
lie (unlawful) or a mistake
What is
communicated
False presupposition
forms deception
False implicature could be
called leading stray
(seduction)
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
62
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Presupposition failures








Peter Harder & Christian Kock 1976: The 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+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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!
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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!
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
SHS+
SHSH+
H+
HS+
HSH+
HSHS+
insincerity
non-solidarity
feigning
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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!
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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!
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
 jkjkjkjkj
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
83
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Deception
 Deception, achieved:

S- H

SH
HS+
 SHS+ HSH
 SHSH
HSHS
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
HS+
HSH+
HSHS+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
85
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Deception
 Deception, achieved, and mistake (no one-up):

S
SH+
 SHS+
 SHSH+

HHS+
HSH+
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,
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
86
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Deception
 Naive deception, achieved (no one-up-ness):

S SH+
 SHS+
 SHSH+
HHS+
HSH+
HSHS+
 "Magnificent," said the two officials already duped.
"Just look, Your Majesty, what colours! What a
design!" PRESUPPOSED: THERE IS SOME CLOTH;
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
87
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Deception
 Naïve, abortive deception, (H one-up twice):

S
SH+
 SHS+
 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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
SHS
 SHSH
HSHS
SHSH
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
H
HSHSH
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
proposition
Infelicitous reference:
obscurity
False predication is a blatant
lie (unlawful) or a mistake
What is
communicated
False presupposition
forms deception
False implicature could be
called leading stray
(seduction)
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
SH+
SHS+
SHSH+
HHSHSHHSHS-
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.”
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
99
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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: The 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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
101
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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:
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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’




SSHSHSSHSH+
HHS+
HSH+
HSHS+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
106
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Deception
 Perfidy:

S- H

SH- HS
 SHS- HSH
 SHSH+ HSHS
 ???????????????
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
 ????????????????
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
108
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
A case study
BLADR VIDERE!
Der står noget meget 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
109
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
•
•
•
•
•
•
BLADR VIDERE!
Der står noget meget 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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 SHS SHSH+
HHSHSH+ (?)
HSHS-
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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 the 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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 how 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."
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
120
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27
Example 3: Three fools
 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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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”.
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
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+
AAR H U S U N I V E R S I T Y
Scandinavian Institute
124
Ole Togeby, Pragmatics of deception
Interpersonal deception: Jan. 26-27