Interpreting Indirect Replies

Abstract

A model is proposed that explains how people arrive at specific interpretations of indirect replies. The model is based on Grice's (1975) conversational logic, coupled with Goffman's (1967) insights regarding face management. The model assumes that hearers, upon recognizing that a speaker has violated the relevance maxim, will generate an inference in order to make sense of the remark; this inference will then be based on the hearer's belief about why the violation occurred. Face management is assumed to be a major motivation for violating the relevance maxim, and thus it should serve as a frame for interpreting the violation. As a result, the most likely interpretation of an indirect reply is one that would be face-threatening in the situation. The results of three experiments provided support for these propositions. Specifically, relevance violations were generally interpreted as conveying nonliteral meaning. In these situations negative information was most face-threatening, and as a result the replies were usually interpreted as conveying negative information. In addition, when face management as “a reason” for a relevance violation was eliminated or contradicted, relevance violations became much more ambiguous and difficult to comprehend.