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.

LIN102H5 S All Sections TUT11 preparation (Mar.31)

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?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

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?

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler