linguistic/social device
September 29, 2009 4:09 PM Subscribe
What do you call this linguistic/social device?
You are in a social situation, and want to get out. You say maybe, 'I'm going to be late for a meeting', when both people KNOW there is no meeting. But since you are being SO OBVIOUS, you are, in effect, telling them you are leaving.
By being obvious, you are not evading, or lying, you are being creatively blunt.
In the same way, you are in a group, and do not like the way the conversation is going.
You interrupt with 'and what do you people think about the new fed reserve policy'.....OBVIOUSLY changing the discussion...in fact, killing the previous, and saying, in effect, I am sick of this and am changing it.
My question is 2-fold.
What do you call this maneuver; and why do so many people miss it?
Like a subtle joke, so many just look at you and say, 'what?'
In the same way, you are in a group, and do not like the way the conversation is going.
You interrupt with 'and what do you people think about the new fed reserve policy'.....OBVIOUSLY changing the discussion...in fact, killing the previous, and saying, in effect, I am sick of this and am changing it.
My question is 2-fold.
What do you call this maneuver; and why do so many people miss it?
Like a subtle joke, so many just look at you and say, 'what?'
The first is the "social lie"-- a lie that hurts no one and everyone agrees to accept. The most obvious example of this is the proper response to the inquiry, "how are you?," which is "fine," whether or not that is true.
The second is redirection. People miss it when it is poorly done.
posted by nax at 4:29 PM on September 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
The second is redirection. People miss it when it is poorly done.
posted by nax at 4:29 PM on September 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
The first I would call making an excuse.
The second, steering a conversation. People are supposed to miss it if it is well executed. Often the people who don't miss it will not say anything because they also find the present conversation boring or controversial.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:31 PM on September 29, 2009
The second, steering a conversation. People are supposed to miss it if it is well executed. Often the people who don't miss it will not say anything because they also find the present conversation boring or controversial.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:31 PM on September 29, 2009
polite fiction.
posted by Good Brain at 4:34 PM on September 29, 2009
posted by Good Brain at 4:34 PM on September 29, 2009
Response by poster: this is good.
But I am not talking about subtle redirection. That I do also. But sometimes I want to be blunter about my redirection....w/out just saying 'I am changing the subject'
Maybe doing the above but w/ a sense of humor?
posted by ebesan at 4:42 PM on September 29, 2009
But I am not talking about subtle redirection. That I do also. But sometimes I want to be blunter about my redirection....w/out just saying 'I am changing the subject'
Maybe doing the above but w/ a sense of humor?
posted by ebesan at 4:42 PM on September 29, 2009
One of the main principles underlying conversation (due to H. P. Grice) is that contributions are guided by relevance. That is, when choosing what to say, you try to say things that are relevant for the subject at hand. (Giving a theory of how that calculation of relevance is done, and how the subject at hand is represented, is of course extremely non-trivial.) This relevance principle is just one part of the cooperative principle -- the idea is that you approach interpreting someone else's utterances as if they are acting/communicating cooperatively, at least as a first approximation (this can be dropped of course if you know they are lying, or unreliable, etc). One thing you can do in general with Grice's principles (called maxims of conversation) is overtly disobey them for communicative effect, termed "flouting" them. Your second example is a classic example of flouting the maxim of relevance. By being completely, overtly, irrelevant, you cause someone who hears you to reason about how you could be being cooperative while being so irrelevant. The normal conclusion is that you have decided that anti-relevance is the most cooperative contribution you can make to the conversation, because you want to change the subject or stop the conversation.
There are two core ways this could go wrong, I think. One is that someone could fail to realize that this is intentionally irrelevant, and continue trying futilely to figure out some obscure way that it is in fact relevant to the conversation. (This is a normal kind of calculation to make in other circumstances.) The other is that someone could realize that it isn't supposed to be relevant, but fail to figure out how this is cooperative, e.g. fail to realize that you might be uncomfortable with the conversation.
posted by advil at 4:59 PM on September 29, 2009 [9 favorites]
There are two core ways this could go wrong, I think. One is that someone could fail to realize that this is intentionally irrelevant, and continue trying futilely to figure out some obscure way that it is in fact relevant to the conversation. (This is a normal kind of calculation to make in other circumstances.) The other is that someone could realize that it isn't supposed to be relevant, but fail to figure out how this is cooperative, e.g. fail to realize that you might be uncomfortable with the conversation.
posted by advil at 4:59 PM on September 29, 2009 [9 favorites]
I would classify it as along the lines of saying "I need to end this conversation, but I mean you no offense."
It's also a way to force someone to be a bigger jerk than you if they are going to call your lie.
posted by gjc at 5:13 PM on September 29, 2009
It's also a way to force someone to be a bigger jerk than you if they are going to call your lie.
posted by gjc at 5:13 PM on September 29, 2009
Seconding verbal irony - although that might just be the overuse of "irony" in the zeitgeist.
posted by squorch at 5:35 PM on September 29, 2009
posted by squorch at 5:35 PM on September 29, 2009
Verbal irony is a good suggestion.
One reason people might miss it is that it requires assumptions. Someone would have to know you fairly well to be sure that you don't actually want to talk monetary policy (even though you're out at a bar) or that you don't actually have a meeting (even though it's 10:30 PM and you're now leaving the bar). I can imagine being in a situation where I wanted to laugh and was pretty sure you were joking, but holding back for fear of laughing at something you meant earnestly.
posted by salvia at 5:36 PM on September 29, 2009
One reason people might miss it is that it requires assumptions. Someone would have to know you fairly well to be sure that you don't actually want to talk monetary policy (even though you're out at a bar) or that you don't actually have a meeting (even though it's 10:30 PM and you're now leaving the bar). I can imagine being in a situation where I wanted to laugh and was pretty sure you were joking, but holding back for fear of laughing at something you meant earnestly.
posted by salvia at 5:36 PM on September 29, 2009
Indirection by prevarication (or "white lies" works too). "Indirection" is the technical term in linguistics for saying one thing but meaning another.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:43 PM on September 29, 2009
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:43 PM on September 29, 2009
How about 'a rhetorical lie'?
posted by mannequito at 6:13 PM on September 29, 2009
posted by mannequito at 6:13 PM on September 29, 2009
If you use the same redirect phrase every time you change a conversation, the people with whom you regularly interact will definitely get the point.
I have no knowledge of any sport, am never mistaken for someone with knowledge of any sport, and do not live in Houston. For years, my stock redirect phrase has been, "So, how about them Astros?"
posted by timeo danaos at 6:52 PM on September 29, 2009
I have no knowledge of any sport, am never mistaken for someone with knowledge of any sport, and do not live in Houston. For years, my stock redirect phrase has been, "So, how about them Astros?"
posted by timeo danaos at 6:52 PM on September 29, 2009
sometimes I want to be blunter about my redirection....w/out just saying 'I am changing the subject'
Maybe doing the above but w/ a sense of humor?
The question "So, how about those Mets?" is kind of the universally-accepted joke version of saying "I am changing the subject."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:37 PM on September 29, 2009
Maybe doing the above but w/ a sense of humor?
The question "So, how about those Mets?" is kind of the universally-accepted joke version of saying "I am changing the subject."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:37 PM on September 29, 2009
@nd timeo danaos....In the spirit of the modegreen, I nominate a new phrase: You could call this manuever a "sohowbout." As in, "So, how 'bout those Mets...." it's a redirect onto a safe topic in the common parlance.
posted by Diablevert at 8:45 PM on September 29, 2009
posted by Diablevert at 8:45 PM on September 29, 2009
The first is a lie.
The second is an interruption.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:33 AM on September 30, 2009
The second is an interruption.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:33 AM on September 30, 2009
The "How about them " phrase being so common that I am always surprised when someone says "huh?" and gets a quizzical look on their face.
posted by Carillon at 2:09 AM on September 30, 2009
posted by Carillon at 2:09 AM on September 30, 2009
In the spirit of the modegreen, I nominate a new phrase: You could call this manuever a "sohowbout."
Yes, that's precisely it! I intend to adopt this and will do my best to persuade myself that I authored it.
Too much originality in a sohowbout is probably counterproductive. I have a friend who uses, "Have I ever talked with you about the great opportunities in network marketing?" as his sohowbout, but this tends to cause alarm and should probably be reserved for people with whom you no longer wish to talk. Another friend is fond of saying, "I like apples." This one is usually met with blank stares of confusion, although sometimes people give him apples.
posted by timeo danaos at 4:17 AM on September 30, 2009
Yes, that's precisely it! I intend to adopt this and will do my best to persuade myself that I authored it.
Too much originality in a sohowbout is probably counterproductive. I have a friend who uses, "Have I ever talked with you about the great opportunities in network marketing?" as his sohowbout, but this tends to cause alarm and should probably be reserved for people with whom you no longer wish to talk. Another friend is fond of saying, "I like apples." This one is usually met with blank stares of confusion, although sometimes people give him apples.
posted by timeo danaos at 4:17 AM on September 30, 2009
Response by poster: folks, this is great. thank you all.
I'm so glad there are so many of us out there.
so, next time we meet at a bar.......
posted by ebesan at 9:10 AM on September 30, 2009
I'm so glad there are so many of us out there.
so, next time we meet at a bar.......
posted by ebesan at 9:10 AM on September 30, 2009
Response by poster: Gricean maxims
Speakers who deliberately flout the maxims usually intend for their listener to understand their underlying implication. In the case of the clumsy friend, she will most likely understand that the speaker is truly not offering a compliment. Therefore, cooperation is still taking place, but no longer on the literal level. Conversationalists can assume that when speakers intentionally flout a maxim, they still do so with the aim of expressing some thought. Thus, the Gricean Maxims serve a purpose both when they are followed and when they are flouted.
posted by ebesan at 11:09 AM on September 30, 2009
Speakers who deliberately flout the maxims usually intend for their listener to understand their underlying implication. In the case of the clumsy friend, she will most likely understand that the speaker is truly not offering a compliment. Therefore, cooperation is still taking place, but no longer on the literal level. Conversationalists can assume that when speakers intentionally flout a maxim, they still do so with the aim of expressing some thought. Thus, the Gricean Maxims serve a purpose both when they are followed and when they are flouted.
posted by ebesan at 11:09 AM on September 30, 2009
Ah, so you want to get into truth-conditional norms and performative speech acts?
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:06 PM on September 30, 2009
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:06 PM on September 30, 2009
In the same way, you are in a group, and do not like the way the conversation is going.
You interrupt with 'and what do you people think about the new fed reserve policy'.....OBVIOUSLY changing the discussion...in fact, killing the previous, and saying, in effect, I am sick of this and am changing it.
...why do so many people miss it?
Like a subtle joke, so many just look at you and say, 'what?'
They aren't missing it. They are looking at you and saying "what?" because you're being rude. If not everyone wants to change the topic, you're saying a big fuck-you ("I am sick of this and am changing it") to the people who are enjoying the current conversation.
posted by booksandlibretti at 4:30 PM on September 30, 2009
You interrupt with 'and what do you people think about the new fed reserve policy'.....OBVIOUSLY changing the discussion...in fact, killing the previous, and saying, in effect, I am sick of this and am changing it.
...why do so many people miss it?
Like a subtle joke, so many just look at you and say, 'what?'
They aren't missing it. They are looking at you and saying "what?" because you're being rude. If not everyone wants to change the topic, you're saying a big fuck-you ("I am sick of this and am changing it") to the people who are enjoying the current conversation.
posted by booksandlibretti at 4:30 PM on September 30, 2009
Response by poster: you're being rude.
Sometimes. You are right.
Sometimes, there is a need to fix what is broken, (a nasty conversation) and a blunt instrument works where diplomacy fails.
A hammer in the hands of a child can damage; an adult learns proportional response, and chooses the appropriate tool.
posted by ebesan at 7:37 AM on October 1, 2009
Sometimes. You are right.
Sometimes, there is a need to fix what is broken, (a nasty conversation) and a blunt instrument works where diplomacy fails.
A hammer in the hands of a child can damage; an adult learns proportional response, and chooses the appropriate tool.
posted by ebesan at 7:37 AM on October 1, 2009
If people approved of what you were doing -- if you were doing it with judicious skill -- you wouldn't get that kind of reaction from them. If not everyone agrees the conversation is "nasty" or "broken," and you still totally interrupt and force them to a different topic, you're definitely being rude, and they're reacting to that. That's why, when you do this, they stare at you and say "what?" If people were happy about your forceful change of topic, they would go along with it.
posted by booksandlibretti at 11:36 AM on October 1, 2009
posted by booksandlibretti at 11:36 AM on October 1, 2009
« Older Which typeface has a particularly well designed... | Looking for Canesten Hygiene Laundry Rinse... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I have no idea about the second, but I do it sometimes and it is funny when people don't pick up on it.
posted by Aizkolari at 4:21 PM on September 29, 2009