Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.124–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

When lying is more than deceiving

A pragmatic study of lying, based on the relevance-adaptation model

 | Shanghai International Studies University
 | Shanghai International Studies University
Published online: 30 March 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17021.li
Abstract
Lying is a common but controversial verbal phenomenon in human society. This paper aims to uncover the motivation and mechanism of lying as regards its definition, classification and operation by analyzing both the speaker’s production and the addressee’s interpretation process. The Relevance-Adaptation Model is adopted as its theoretical framework. Lying cases, retrieved from an American TV drama Lie to Me, are analyzed from different perspectives to provide concrete evidence for the theoretical assumptions.
The findings are two-fold: Theoretically, this paper formulates a working diagram of the Relevance-Adaptation Model with some modifications to the original to be better applied to the field of lying. Empirically, it supports the claim that the presumption of relevance motivates both the speaker and the addressee to lie or to process lying in the first place. Then, both communicators will enter a relevance-adaptation phase through making structural choices inter-adapt with relevant contextual correlates. An optimal lie is one which is maximally relevant and maximally adapted to the context to benefit the speaker and/or the addressee.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Definition and classification of lying
    • 2.2Previous pragmatic studies of lying
  • 3.Theoretical framework
    • 3.1Rationale for using a relevance-adaptation model
      • 3.1.1Relevance Theory and verbal communication
      • 3.1.2Adaptation Theory and verbal communication
    • 3.2Key notions of the relevance-adaptation model
  • 4.Analyses of lying using the relevance-adaptation model
    • 4.1Methodology and data collection
    • 4.2Operational definition and classification of lying following the relevance-adaptation model
      • 4.2.1Operational definition of lying
      • 4.2.2Operational classification of lying
    • 4.3Analysis of lie production under the relevance-adaptation model
      • 4.3.1Motivation for choosing lying as a communicative strategy
      • 4.3.2Structural choices in producing lies
      • 4.3.3Contextual adaptation to structure
    • 4.4Analysis of lie interpretation in the relevance-adaptation model
      • 4.4.1Motivation for the addressee’s processing efforts
      • 4.4.2Contextual construction for lying interpretation
      • 4.4.3Addressee’s choice of interpretation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Antas, Jolanta. 2000. O kłamstwie i kłamaniu. (‘On deception and lying’) Kraków: TAiWPN Universitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Augustine, St. 1952. “On Lying.” In Roy J. Deferrari (ed.). St. Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects (pp.47–109). New York: The Fathers of the Church.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bok, Sissela. 1989. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage books. (Updated edition).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buller, David. B. & Judee K. Burgoon. 1994. “Deception: Strategic and Non-strategic communication.” In John A. Daly & John M. Wiemann (eds.). Strategic Interpersonal Communication (pp.191–223). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carson, Thomas L. 2010. Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Rong, Chunmei Hu & Lin He. 2013. “Lying between English and Chinese: An Intercultural Comparative Study.” Intercultural Pragmatics 10(3): 375–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, Linda, & Paul Kay. 1981. “Prototype Semantics: The English Word Lie.” Language 57 (1): 26–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danziger, Eve. 2010. “On Trying and Lying: Cultural Configurations of Grice’s Maxim of Quality.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (2): 199–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DePaulo, Bella M., Deborah A. Kashy, Susan E. Kirkendol, Melissa M. Wyer & Jennifer A. Epstein. 1996. “Lying in Everyday Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (5): 979–995. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dong, Jing. 2012. A Translation Study of Variations in the Novel ‘Wolf Totem’, guided by the Relevance-Adaptation Model. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2012. “Humorous phenomena in dramatic discourse.” European Journal of Humour Research 1(1): 22–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1992. Telling Lies. Clues to deceit in the Marketplace, Politics and Marriage. New York: Norton & Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. “Lying and Deception.” In Nancy L. Stein, Peter A. Ornstein, Barbara Tversky & Charles Brainerd (Eds.). Memory for Everyday and Emotional Events (Chapter 14). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fallis, Don. 2009. “What is lying?” The Journal of Philosophy 106 (1): 29–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Lying as a violation of Grice’s first Maxim of Quality.” Dialectica 66 (4): 563–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics Vol. 31: Speech Acts (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardin, Karol J. 2010. “The Spanish notion of lie: Revisiting Coleman and Kay.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (12): 3199–3213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Ziran & Shuling Zhang. 2004. “Deception as a pragmatic strategy: An adaptation-based approach.” Journal of Foreign Languages 61: 25–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornung, Melanie. 2016. “Classifying prosocial lies. An empirical approach.” International Review of Pragmatics 8 (2): 219–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Marta. 2016. “Lying and the Relevance-Theoretic Explicit/Implicit Distinction.” Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies 25 (2):73–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kupfer, Joseph. 1982. “The moral presumption against lying.” Review of Metaphysics 36(1): 103–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin T., & Deborah Tannen. 1984. “Conversational strategy and metastrategy in a pragmatic theory: The example of scenes from a marriage.” Semiotica 491 (3–4): 323–346.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahon, James Edwin. 2008. “Two definitions of lying.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22(2): 211–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masip, Jaume, Eugenio Garrido & Carmen Herrero. 2004. “Defining deception.” Anales de Psicologia 20(1):147–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCornack, Steven A. 1992. “Information manipulation theory.” Communication Monographs 59(1): 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2005. “Lying and falsely implicating.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (9): 1373–1399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “On lying: Intentionality, implicature, and imprecision.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 277–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Lying at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “The Linguistics of Lying.” Annual Review of Linguistics 4 (1):357–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meltzer, Bernard M. 2003. “Lying: Deception in human affairs.” The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(6): 61–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2002. Pragmatics: An Introduction Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. (Second edition).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ran, Yongping. 2004. “The Adaptation-Relevance Model of interaction and its application to situated conversational discourse.” Foreign Language Research 21:28–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 1994. “The description of lies in Speech Act Theory.” In Herman Parret (ed.). Pretending to communicate (pp. 292–298). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibles, Warren. 1985. Lying: A Critical Analysis. Whitewater, Wisc.: The Language Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, David. 1992. “Lying, Liars and Language.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(3): 623–640. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44):117–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1987. “The definition of lie: an examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype.” In Dorothy Holland & Naomi Quinn (eds.). Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp.43–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vrij, Aldert. 2000. Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2002. Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2006. “Relevance Theory.” In Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xie, Chaoqun, Ziran He & Dajin Lin. 2005. “Politeness: Myth and Truth.” Studies in Language 29(2): 431–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Ping. 2001. “The Relevance-Adaptation Model.” Journal of Foreign Languages 61:21–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue