• Comprehension
» Conversation
◊ Pragmatics
◊ Structure
◊ Empirical investigations
Study Questions.
• Describe some of the maxims or rules of conversation.
• Describe three types of converational implicatures.
3/22/2016
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Pragmatics: Making sure people understand what was meant, not what was
said.
◊ E.g., taking attendance.
“they won’t be going to class because they want to be there”
◊ Austen’s (1962) description.
– Locutionary act -> Actual utterance
“Do you feel cold?”
– Illocutionary act -> Interpretation by listener
“Turn up the heat, please.”
– Perlocutionary act -> Effect on the listener
-> Turns up the heat.
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Pragmatics
◊ Organization of the speech act (i.e., illocution)
– Constative: Expression of a belief, intending to create a similar belief
in the listener.
E.g, I conclude the issue is solved
(assert, predict, suggest, describe, conclude)
– Directive: Expressing an interest in the listener’s actions with an
intention of using the utterance to provide a reason for it.
E.g, I recommend you take Psych 220.
(request, question, prohibit, authorize, recommend)
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Pragmatics
◊ Organization of the speech act (i.e., illocution)
– Commissive: Obligates the speaker to do something.
E.g, I promise it won’t happen again
(promise, offer)
– Acknowledgement: Expressing feelings for the listener, whether true
or socially expected.
E.g, Congratulations on passing your Psych 220 exam.
(apologize, congratulate, thank, refuse)
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Structure
◊ Turn taking
◊ Sachs model: Three rules
1. Current speaker selects next speaker
2. If not (1), then next speaker self-selects
3. If not (2), then current speaker continues
◊ Cues to turn taking
– Assent terms: Current speaker is to continue
(Yes, Okay, Uh-Uh, Mmmnph, etc.)
 Ratifying repitition: Repeating the last word/phrase said
 Adjacency pairs (e.g., a direct question)
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Structure
◊ Cooperative Principal: participants in a conversation assume that
everyone is following the rules and contributions are sincere and
appropriate.
◊ Conversational maxims (Grice, 1975)
– Quantity: Being informative
Parent: Where did you go?
Teenager: Out.
Parent: What did you do?
Teenager: Nothin’.
But not too informative:
Can I borrow a pen?
Can I borrow a pen with ink in it?
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Structure
◊ Conversational maxims (Grice, 1975)
– Quality. Tell the truth.
Parent: Did you just walk in the kitchen and steal a cookie?
Child: No. (he ran into the kitchen and stole a cookie).
– Relevance.
» Topic Maintenance: sticking to the topic and being relevant
– Manner. Be polite. Be clear.
Eschew obfuscation by circumventing sesquipedalian
oration.
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Structure
◊ Conversational implicature (Grice)
– Implicature: what is suggested in an utterance even though it is not
strictly implied (i.e., it is entailed)
Mary had a baby and got married
- Suggests that Mary had the baby before she got married
… although not necessarily in that order
- Cancels the implicature
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Three types of conversational implicature
1. Violating a conversation maxim to convey additional meaning
Student A: What did you think of last night’s lecture?
Student B: Well, I’m sure he was speaking English.
– Violates the Maxim of Quantity
-> Assuming the cooperative is being followed, there must be
additional meaning in the utterance.
-> Implicature: the lecture was confusing.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Three types of conversational implicature
2. A desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in the violation of one
to invoke the other
Student: Where is Dr. McCormick?
Marion: He is either in his office or at home.
– Maxims of Quality and Quantity are in conflict, Quantity is violated
thereby invoking Quality
-> Implicature: she does not have the evidence to give an exact
answer.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Three types of conversational implicature
3. Invoking a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance.
Tourist: Do you know where I can get some gas?
Local: There’s gas station just around the corner.
– Invokes Maxim of Relevance
- Implicature: the gas station is open and one can purchase gas there.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Indirect speech acts (Searle)
– Communicating to the listener more than you are saying by relying on
mutually shared background information, and the general powers of
reason and inference.
– Primary illocutionary act: the indirect illocutionary act.
– Secondary illocutionary act: the direct illocutionary act realized
in the literal interpretation of the sentence.
Speaker A: We should leave for the show now or we will be late.
Speaker B: I’m not ready yet.
-> Primary: Rejection of A’s suggestion
-> Secondary: B is not ready.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
– Why do we use innuendo?
Mae West:
Why don't you come on up and see me sometime -- when I've got
nothin' on but the radio.
How to bribe a Maitre d’ after you've been declined a table (from
Bluenile.com, a luxury gift Web site).
“ Shake hands with the man in question, and simply slide the folded
bill into his palm. Then ask him, if it would not be a bother, to
please check one more time . . ."
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
– Extortion
Monty Python sketch available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRm5WcjOikQ
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
– Cooperation is only part of of human communication
– Indirect speech often occurs in situations of conflict
-> Diplomacy, extortion, veiled threats, bribery, and sexual
harassment happen during conflict
– Three parts to Pinker’s theory
1. Plausible deniability
2. Relationship negotiation
3. Language as a digital medium
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
1. Plausible deniability
» Game theory and pay-off matrices
-> Bribing a traffic cop
Dishonest
officer
Honest
officer
Don’t Bribe
Traffic
Ticker
Traffic
Ticker
Bribe
Go
Free
Arrest for
bribery
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
1. Plausible deniability
» Using innuendo to bribe a traffic cop
Dishonest
officer
Honest
officer
Implicate
Bribe
Go
Free
Traffic
Ticker
Don’t Bribe
Traffic
Ticker
Traffic
Ticker
Bribe
Go
Free
Arrest for
bribery
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
2. Relationship negotiation
» What if there are no legal consequences?
If you could pass the salt, that would be awesome!
» Three distinct types of relationships (Fiske)
1. Dominance/ authority
2. Communal sharing
3. Reciprocity
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
2. Relationship negotiation
» Bribing a Maitre d’
Dishonest
Maitre d’
Honest
Maitre d’
Don’t Bribe
No seat/
Long wait
No seat/
Long wait
Bribe
Seat/
Short wait
Awkwardness
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
2. Relationship negotiation
» Using innuendo to bribe a Maitre d’
Dishonest
officer
Honest
officer
Implicate
Bribe
Seat/
Short wait
No seat/
Long wait
Don’t Bribe
No seat/
Long wait
No seat/
Long wait
Bribe
Seat/
Short wait
Awkwardness
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
3. Language as a digital medium
I] Overt propositions are perceived as certain (not merely highly
likely), implicatures are less than certain
II] Implicatures are context dependent, direct speech is context-free.
- Overt propositions are “out-there”
III] Indirect speech provides shared individual knowledge, direct
speech provides common knowledge
- Shared: B knows she has turned down an overture
A knows B has turned down an overture
- Common: A knows that B knows that A knows that B ….
Comprehension
• Conversations
» Structure
◊ Online activity during conversation
– Direct theory: We tailor our conversation to an appropriate level of
compexity.
-> First order theory of mind
– Isaacs & Clark (1987)
– References in conversation
B. How long y'gonna be here?
A. Uh-not too long. Uh just til un Monday.
B. Til-oh ya mean like a week from tomorrow.
A. Yah
B. (Continues)
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Online activity during conversation
– Three processes used to accommodate for expertise
1. Assessing expertise
Dr. : Could you contract your deltoid, please
Patient: My what?
2. Supplying expertise
Dr. : Could you raise your arm out sideways, please
Patient: Ouch!
Dr. It looks like its your deltoid.
3. Acquiring expertise
> Novice seeks out information
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Online activity during conversation
– Method
 New Yorkers (experts) and Non New Yorkers (novices)
 Describe 16 postcards to partner who must pick the right one from
his/ her deck of 16 cards
Director: Tenth is the Cidicorp (sic), Citicorp Building?
Matcher: Is that with the slanted top?
Director: Yes.
Matcher: M’kay.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Online activity during conversation
– Results
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Structure
◊
Online activity during conversation
– Results
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Theories about our conversational partners
◊
Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about
you.
-> Second order theory of mind
A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self”
next term.
B: Isn’t that just a bunch of boring brain stuff?
Direct theory: He doesn’t know much about social psychology!
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Theories about our conversational partners
◊
Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about
you.
A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self”
next term.
B: Me too! Christie gave me some readings that she thought I would like.
Direct theory: He knows the professor by first name and is bragging about it.
Second-order theory: He thinks I will be impressed that he calls the professor
“Christie”.
Comprehension
•
Conversations
»
Theories about our conversational partners
◊
Second order theory: What you think the other person thinks about
you.
A: I think that I will take Dr. Lomore’s course on “The Psychology of the Self”
next term.
B: Maybe you shouldn’t take that class, I hear it is pretty tough and there is a lot
of reading.
Direct theory: What an insulting <insert dysphemism here> !
Second-order theory: He is concerned about my welfare…but doesn’t think I am
very smart