title: The logic of indirect speech.
abstract: When people speak, they often insinuate their intent indirectly rather than stating it as a bald proposition. Examples include sexual come-ons, veiled threats, polite requests, and concealed bribes. We propose a three-part theory of indirect speech, based on the idea that human communication involves a mixture of cooperation and conflict. First, indirect requests allow for plausible deniability, in which a cooperative listener can accept the request, but an uncooperative one cannot react adversarially to it. This intuition is supported by a game-theoretic model that predicts the costs and benefits to a speaker of direct and indirect requests. Second, language has two functions: to convey information and to negotiate the type of relationship holding between speaker and hearer (in particular, dominance, communality, or reciprocity). The emotional costs of a mismatch in the assumed relationship type can create a need for plausible deniability and, thereby, select for indirectness even when there are no tangible costs. Third, people perceive language as a digital medium, which allows a sentence to generate common knowledge, to propagate a message with high fidelity, and to serve as a reference point in coordination games. This feature makes an indirect request qualitatively different from a direct one even when the speaker and listener can infer each other's intentions with high confidence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, and Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. pinker@wjh.harvard.edu
authors.forename: Steven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Pinker
authors.forename: Martin A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Nowak
authors.forename: James J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D005716:Game Theory; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D008128:Logic; D017008:Negotiating; D013060:Speech