Where we were
Week 1: the handshake, written down. Week 2: why nobody had written it down, and how to take a note without diagnosing anyone.
This week: the protocol says things without saying them, and we build the decoder.
“We should get coffee sometime.”
A request to schedule coffee?
Answer with a day and a time, and the other person’s face may do something complicated.
The line can be an invitation or a way to say you’d like to stay on friendly terms.
There is a published spec
Grice’s Cooperative Principle, and four categories of maxim under it.
| Category | The maxim, in short |
|---|---|
| Quantity | as informative as required, no more |
| Quality | don’t say what you believe false |
| Relation | be relevant |
| Manner | be perspicuous |
The author filed the bug himself
Alongside the maxims, Grice notes others — “such as ‘Be polite’” — that also generate meaning beyond what is said.
And that stating the maxims as though talk existed to exchange information is “too narrow”.
Payload: what the speaker needs you to understand or do.
Envelope: how it’s wrapped, and the maxim those words bend to get there.
- On the envelope
- “We should get coffee sometime.”
- Noted on it
- bends Quantity: no time, no place
- Payload inside
- I'd like us to be on friendly terms.
Why anyone sends an envelope
- Plausible deniability — a cooperative listener accepts, an unwilling one declines, and neither has to name a refusal
- Talk does two jobs: carries information, and negotiates the relationship
- An explicit statement becomes common knowledge; a hint never does
“To be polite” doesn’t predict anything
True, and nearly useless. It doesn’t tell you when to expect an envelope.
The strategic speaker
Indirect when the speaker is uncertain whether the hearer is cooperative or antagonistic.
The paradigm case: bribing a policeman who may be corrupt or honest. A veiled bribe is taken up by one and ignored by the other.
Lee & Pinker (2010), Psychological Review 117(3)A hint can protect the sender from a refusal — or leave an understood request off the record.
What the sender doesn’t know
| The envelope | What they’re not sure of |
|---|---|
| “We should get coffee sometime.” | whether you want to be friends |
| “No worries if not!” | whether the favour is too big to ask |
| “Are you around this weekend at all?” | whether you’re free, and whether you’d want to |
| “I don’t know if this is useful, but—” | whether the group wants their idea |
The right column is a list of things the sender is exposed on.
Even when you both know
Indirectness still buys higher-order deniability: preempting certainty, gossip, and common knowledge of the request.
The request itself remains unsaid, even when both of you understood it.
Lee & Pinker (2010)In the room: find what stays unsaid (8 min)
Four minutes, in pairs. Use the four envelopes in the table: coffee, “no worries”, the weekend and an idea for the group. What might the sender not know, or what might either person prefer to leave off the record?
Two minutes. Compare with the pair beside you. Write down both possible payloads where you disagree.
Two minutes, the room. One line, argued out loud.
The decoder
| Utterance | Maxim bent | Payload |
|---|---|---|
| “We should get coffee sometime.” | Quantity: no time, no place | I’d like us to be on friendly terms. |
| “No worries if not!” | Quality: there may well be worries | I’d like this, and here’s a painless exit. |
| “Is it cold in here?” | Relation: temperature, asked of a person | Could the window be closed? |
| “Interesting idea.” | Quantity: no content | I’m not convinced. |
| “Just circling back on this.” | Quantity: no new information | This is late. |
These are the course’s entries, not a research table. Test them in the lab.
Decoding from both ends
If you decode by reading the words: it’s a lookup until it isn’t. When the stakes matter, ask for the payload — and take the blame for the ambiguity.
“Do you mean coffee as a plan, or as a nice thing to say? Either’s fine. I just want to know whether to put it in my calendar.”
If you decode without noticing: your exercise runs the other way. Send one payload bare, and notice what it costs you.
Sending it bare is always valid
It also changes the relationship a little, because it creates common knowledge where a hint wouldn’t.
That’s a cost, not a mistake. Sometimes it’s worth paying.
You can lower it by naming the choice: “I’m going to be literal, because I’d rather not get this wrong.”
Who’s actually wrong when a hint misses?
People said deliberately ambiguous sentences, trying to convey one specific intention, then estimated whether the addressee understood.
They overestimated, consistently.
Keysar & Henly (2002), Psychological Science 13(3)And the control
Overhearers who knew the speaker’s intention did not overestimate.
So it isn’t a general fact about watching a conversation. It comes from having been the one who spoke.
Both sides of the room
If you send envelopes: check what the listener understood. If needed, send the second one plainer.
If you miss them: the sender may have overestimated how clear they were.
But is the decoder missing?
From “John or Mary will come”, most listeners infer not both — though the words permit both.
The authors predicted autistic participants would make fewer of these inferences.
Result, in their words: contrary to expectations. No group difference.
Chevallier, Wilson, Happé & Noveck (2010), JADD 40(9)In the room: send it twice (7 min)
Three minutes. A request you’re willing to share, written as an envelope. Or use the fictional request “Please close the window”. Include the setting.
Two minutes. The same request bare. No softening, no exit ramp.
Two minutes, in pairs. Swap; your partner reads only the envelope and writes the payload. Then show them the bare one.
Break
14:55–15:05
Resume at 15:05.
Over-decoding
Sometimes “is it cold in here?” is a question about the temperature.
Treating every sentence as a hint is as nonconforming as treating none as one, and more tiring.
The rule of thumb: decode when a maxim is visibly bent and you’re plainly expected to do something. Otherwise take the words at face value — and let them send a second, clearer envelope.
The payload is lunch
Which maxim, and where to look
| Maxim bent | Where the payload usually is |
|---|---|
| Quantity (too little) | something they don’t want on the record |
| Quantity (too much) | the detail they’re justifying |
| Quality (obviously untrue) | the opposite, or a feeling |
| Relation (off topic) | a request about the situation you’re both in |
| Manner (vague on purpose) | something with a cost attached to naming it |
Not a lookup for every sentence. A place to start when one is visibly bent.
One decode, end to end
A group chat. You propose Tuesday. Someone replies: “Tuesday could work!”
- Maxim bent: Quantity — “could” where a yes or no would do.
- Cooperative? Assume yes. Why would a cooperative person be vague here?
- Possible payload: Tuesday is bad, and they don’t want to be the one who blocks it.
- Expected response: offer a second option. “Tuesday or Thursday — either fine with me.”
The next turn checks the hint
In the room: three readings, three replies (10 min)
Fictional cases:
- A, open window: “I’m getting cold.” / “Want me to shut it?” / “Please.”
- B, comparing rooms by phone: “Is it cold in yours?” / “The thermometer says sixteen.”
- C, planning chat: “Tuesday could work!” No further message yet.
2 min: mark words and inferences; find any confirming turn. 3 min: write a reply that checks both readings of C. 3 min: swap with another pair; what options remain open? 2 min: compare two replies and name what remains unknown.
The reply that renegotiates
A bare reply to an envelope is valid. It also creates common knowledge that the hint deliberately avoided.
That’s a cost, not a mistake. Sometimes it’s the right one to pay.
You can lower it by announcing it: “I’m going to be literal, because I’d rather not get this wrong.”
Over-decoding: who pays
Treating every sentence as an envelope is as nonconforming as treating none as one — and more tiring.
You may spend time decoding a hint the speaker never meant to send. They may have no reason to notice.
In the room: the over-decoding audit (6 min)
Three minutes. Two times this week you suspected an envelope. For each: was a maxim visibly bent, and were you plainly expected to act?
Or use the fictional temperature and Tuesday cases. Label them as practice.
Three minutes, in pairs. Read one out. Your partner says only whether the face-value reading also works.
What this week added to the vocabulary
- payload — what the speaker needs you to understand or do
- envelope — how it’s wrapped, and the maxim it bends
- plausible deniability — what the wrapping buys the sender
- over-decoding — finding an envelope where nothing was inside
Plus: an envelope can manage uncertainty or leave a request off the record. Senders can overestimate how clear they were.
Next week: the gaps between turns, and what each length of silence gets read as.
Check yourself against this week
Can you name the maxim a line bends, and say its payload in plain words?
Can you ask for a payload without implying evasion?
Can you give an example of over-decoding?
If time remains
When does leaving a request unsaid give both people room to choose, and when does it leave one person doing all the decoding?
Optional discussion. Finish by 15:55.