Upload
isabel-hubbard
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
• Comprehension» Conversation
◊ Pragmatics
◊ Structure
◊ Empirical investigations
Study Questions.• Describe some of the maxims or rules of conversation.• Describe three types of converational implicatures.
04/20/23
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 rules1. 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 implicature1. 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 implicature2. 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 implicature3. 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
Don’t Bribe
Bribe
Dishonestofficer
Honestofficer
TrafficTicker
TrafficTicker
GoFree
Arrest forbribery
Comprehension
• Conversations» Structure
◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
1. Plausible deniability» Using innuendo to bribe a traffic cop
Don’t Bribe
Bribe
Dishonestofficer
Honestofficer
TrafficTicker
TrafficTicker
GoFree
Arrest forbribery
ImplicateBribe
GoFree
TrafficTicker
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’
Don’t Bribe
Bribe
DishonestMaitre d’
HonestMaitre d’
No seat/Long wait
No seat/Long wait
Seat/Short wait Awkwardness
Comprehension
• Conversations» Structure
◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
2. Relationship negotiation» Using innuendo to bribe a Maitre d’
Don’t Bribe
Bribe
Dishonestofficer
Honestofficer
No seat/Long wait
No seat/Long wait
Seat/Short wait Awkwardness
ImplicateBribe
Seat/Short wait
No seat/Long wait
Comprehension
• Conversations» Structure
◊ The logic of indirect speech (Pinker)
3. Language as a digital mediumI] 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 expertiseDr. : Could you contract your deltoid, pleasePatient: My what?
2. Supplying expertiseDr. : Could you raise your arm out sideways, pleasePatient: 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 mindA: 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