Ambiguous statements are quite frequent in everyday life and are therefore the subject of numerous theoretical and empirical investigations. This article explores the interpretation of ambiguous request/disagreement statements such as “I am afraid I do not follow you” in the light of utilitarian and face-management approaches. It offers a combined test of some key predictions of these two approaches on an original kind of ambiguity between two contrasting indirect interpretations. The results support the utilitarian approach, offer new perspectives on the facework approach, and suggest that this combined approach can be generalized to a large range of ambiguous statements.
Aronsson, K., & Rundström, B. (1989). Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality. On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse. Language in Society, 18, 483-504.
2.
Bonnefon, J.-F., Feeney, A., & Villejoubert, G. (2009). When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Cognition , 112, 249-258.
3.
Bonnefon, J.-F., & Villejoubert, G. (2006). Tactful or doubtful? expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science, 17, 747-751.
4.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1978)
5.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. ( 1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159-212.
6.
Cohen, P., & Perrault, C. ( 1979). Elements of a plan based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177-212.
7.
Demeure, V., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Raufaste, E. ( 2008). Utilitarian relevance and face-management in the interpretation of ambiguous question/request statements. Memory and Cognition , 36, 873-881.
8.
Demeure, V., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Raufaste, E. ( 2009). Politeness and conditional reasoning: Interpersonal cues to the indirect suppression of deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 260-266.
9.
Gibbs, R. ( 1983). Do people always process the literal meaning of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 524-533.
10.
Goffman, E. ( 1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Pantheon Books.
11.
Grice, H. ( 1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377-388.
12.
Grice, H. ( 1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY : Academic Press.
13.
Hilton, D., Villejoubert, G., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2005). How to do things with logical expressions: Creating collective value through co-ordination. Interaction Studies, 6, 103-117.
14.
Hilton, D.J., Kemmelmeier, M., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2005). Putting ifs to work: Goal-based relevance in conditional directives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 388-405.
15.
Holtgraves, T. ( 1994). Communication in context: effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1205-1218.
Holtgraves, T. ( 1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meaning activated? Journal of Memory and Language , 41, 519-540.
18.
Holtgraves, T., Srull, T.K., & Socall, D. ( 1989). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 149-160.
19.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. ( 1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
20.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. ( 1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
21.
Over, D., Manktelow, K., & Hadjichristidis, C. (2004). Conditions for the acceptance of deontic conditionals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 96-105.
22.
Raufaste, E., Longin, D., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2006). Utilitarisme pragmatique et reconnaissance d’intention dans les actes de langage indirects. (Pragmatic utilitarisme and intent recognition in indirect speech acts.) Psychologie de l’Interaction, 21/22, 189-209.
23.
Slugoski, B.R. ( 1995). Mindless processing of requests? Don’t ask twice . British Journal of Social Psychology, 34(Pt 3), 335-350.
24.
Slugoski, B.R., & Turnbull, W. ( 1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 7, 101-121.
25.
Spencer-Oatey, H. ( 1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 1-24.
26.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. ( 1986/1989). La pertinence: Communication et cognition . Paris: Les éditions de Minuit.
27.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. ( 1995). Relevance, communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
28.
Stone, M. ( 2004). Communicative intentions and conversational processes in human-human and human-computer dialogue. In J. Trueswell & M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use (pp. 39-70). Cambridge : MIT Press.
29.
Van der Henst, J.B., Carles, L., & Sperber, D. ( 2002). Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind and Language, 17, 457-466.
30.
Van Rooy, R. ( 2001). Relevance of communicative acts. In J. van Benthem (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK-2001) (pp. 83.96). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
31.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. ( 2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111, 583-632.
32.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. ( 2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
