Consider the following exchange.

Lisi: Who were you out with last night?

Wang: Someone.

(Implicature: Wang does not wish to tell Lisi who he was out with.)

Wang's reply to Lisi flouts one of Grice's maxims in order to create this particular implicature. Which maxim is it?

Question

Consider the following exchange.

Lisi: Who were you out with last night?

Wang: Someone.

(Implicature: Wang does not wish to tell Lisi who he was out with.)

Wang's reply to Lisi flouts one of Grice's maxims in order to create this particular implicature. Which maxim is it?

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

In this exchange, we’re using Gricean pragmatics to interpret how a speaker may flout a conversational maxims to convey implicature.
Option 1: Maxim of Relation. This maxim asks the speaker to be relevant. Flouting it would involve saying something irrelevant, which is not what the line “Someone.” does here; the reply remains somewhat relevant as a way to evade the explicit naming while staying on the topic of being out with someone.
Option 2: Maxim of Manner. This maxim calls for clarity and avoiding ambiguity. If Wang had flouted this maxim, he might speak unclearly or confusely on purpose. However, producing a terse, elliptical answer like “Someone” is more about omission, not about creating ambiguity through disorganization or obscurity in a way that directly targets manner.
Option 3: Maxim of Quantity. This maxim concerns providing the right amount of information—neither too much nor too little. By replying with a vague “Someone,” Wang deliberately withholds specific information about who he was out with. This exactly fits flouting the Quantity maxim, since the speaker provides less information than is required to satisfy the query.
Option 4: Maxim of Quality. This maxim is about truthfulness and having evidence for what one says. Saying “Someone” is not necessarily false; it’s simply non-specific. It does not involve making a claim that would require evidence or truth-conditional support, so the act here is not primarily about violating the Quantity or Truth standards but rather about omission for implicature.
Across these options, the most direct fit for the act of intentionally not supplying the specific name while still addressing the question is a deliberate breach of the Maxim of Quantity, which governs the informative adequacy of the reply. The other maxims address different dimensions of communication, and their violations would produce different pragmatic effects that don’t align as closely with the intended implicature in this example.

Consider the following exchange. Lisi: Who were you out with last night? Wang: Someone. (Implicature: Wang does not wish to tell Lisi who he was out with.) Wang's reply to Lisi flouts one of Grice's maxims in order to create this particular implicature. Which maxim is it?单项选择题

类似问题

Which Gricean maxim is most closely related to the idea that AI explanations should only provide information relevant to the user’s question?

There are five cookies in the cookie jar. Imagine that you asked your roommate if they ate any of the cookies, and they answered "Yeah, I ate some." Later, you find out that your roommate actually ate not just some but all of the cookies. Which maxim is this a violation of?

Name the Supreme Court decision that removed financial constraints on PACs.

Political scientists Joshua Kalla and David Broockman find that senior policy makers made themselves available to _____ between three and four times more often than they did to constituents.

Name the political scientist who argues that parties are designed to serve the needs of ambitious politicians (namely candidates and officeholders).

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单