Related Experiment Videos
Interpreting indirect replies
1Department of Psychological Science, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA. 00t0holtgrav@bsuvc.bsu.edu
Cognitive Psychology
|October 27, 1998
Summary
People interpret indirect replies by considering why a speaker might violate conversational relevance, often to manage social "face." Indirect replies are typically understood as conveying negative information, especially when face-saving is the motive.
Area of Science:
- Psycholinguistics
- Social Psychology
- Communication Studies
Background:
- Understanding indirect replies relies on conversational logic and social dynamics.
- Grice's (1975) conversational logic and Goffman's (1967) face management offer theoretical frameworks.
Purpose of the Study:
- To propose and test a model explaining interpretation of indirect replies.
- To investigate the role of relevance maxim violations and face management in interpreting indirect speech acts.
Main Methods:
- A theoretical model integrating conversational logic and face management was developed.
- Three experiments were conducted to empirically test the model's propositions regarding indirect replies.
Main Results:
- Relevance violations in indirect replies were generally interpreted as nonliteral meanings.
- Face-threatening interpretations, particularly negative information, were most common when face management was a motive.
- Ambiguity increased when face management motivations for relevance violations were removed or contradicted.
Conclusions:
- Hearers infer meaning from indirect replies based on perceived motivations for relevance violations, primarily face management.
- Indirect replies are often interpreted as conveying negative information to protect social face.
- Face management is a critical factor in comprehending indirect communication.