Abstract
The paper is based on the following two assumptions. Firstly, evasive utterances are those which are semantically irrelevant to the question they are an answer to. Secondly, they can be divided into two main categories — overt and covert.
The question to be asked as regards covert evasion is: How is it possible that an evasive speaker can nevertheless count on her/his utterance being considered cooperative? The objective of this paper is to analyse the means which are used by evasive speakers to pretend that their utterance does cooperatively answer the question and thereby meet its conversational demand.
Semantic and pragmatic means were identified as serving the purpose of concealing evasive action. Within the former ones operation within the same topic as the questioner, and, secondly, equipping her/his evasive utterance with some formal characteristics which may indicate its relationship with the question, were listed. On a pragmatic level, the speaker may explicitly or implicitly indicate her/his willingness to answer the question: by statement or implication as well as licenses of uncooperativeness or hedging.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, G. and G. Yule: 1983, Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson: 1987, Politeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cook, G.: 1989, Discourse, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dascal, M.: 1977, ‘Conversational Relevance’, Journal of Pragmatics 1, 309–328.
Galasinski, D.: 1996, ‘Deceptiveness of Evasion’, TEXT 16(1), 1–22.
Graesser, A.C. and S.P. Franklin: 1990, ‘QUEST: A Cognitive Model of Question Answering’, Discourse Processes 13, 279–303.
Grice, H.P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics 3), Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–48.
Grice, H.P.: 1981, ‘Presupposition and Conversational Implicature’, in P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academc Press, New York, pp. 183–198.
Halliday, M.A.K.: 1985, An Introduction to Functional Linguistics, Longman, London.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan: 1985, Language, Context and Text, OUP, Oxford.
Holdcroft, D.: 1987, ‘Conversational Relevance’, in J. Verschueren and M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 477–495.
Hopper, R. and R.A. Bell: 1984, ‘Broadening the Deception Construct’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 288–302.
Kreuz, R.J. and A.C. Graesser: 1993, ‘The Assumptions Behind Questions in Letters to Advice Columnists’, TEXT 13(1), 65–89.
McLaughlin, M.: 1984, Conversation. How Talk is Organized, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Mura, S.S.: 1983, ‘Licensing Violations. Legitimate Violation of Grice's Conversational Principle’, in R.T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence. Form, Structure and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 101–115.
Sanders, R.E.: 1987, Cognitive Foundations of Calculated Speech, SUNY Press, New York.
Walton, D.: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wierzbicka, A.: 1991, Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galasinski, D. Pretending to cooperate. How speakers hide evasive actions. Argumentation 10, 375–388 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182202
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182202