Interpreting indirect replies
Interpreting indirect replies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/cogp.1998.0689
复制
发表时间：
1998-10-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Holtgraves, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Holtgraves, T
提出了一个模型，解释了人们如何到达的具体解释的间接答复。该模型基于Grice（1975）的会话逻辑，以及Goffman（1967）关于面子管理的见解。该模型假设，听话人，在认识到说话人违反了相关准则，将产生一个推理，以使意义的评论，这个推理将是基于听话人的信念，为什么发生违反。面子管理被认为是违反关联准则的一个主要动机，因此它应该作为一个框架来解释违反。因此，间接回答最有可能的解释是在这种情况下威胁到面子。三个实验的结果为这些命题提供了支持。具体来说，相关性违规通常被解释为传达非字面意义。在这种情况下，负面信息最有面子，因此，答复通常被解释为传达负面信息。此外，当面子管理作为相关性违规的“理由”被消除或反驳时，相关性违规变得更加模糊和难以理解。(C)北京：科学出版社.
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. (C) 1998 Academic Press.