Admit it, the truth is in denial

By Ruth Wajnryb
January 22, 2005

Ask someone the time, they say 3.15, you assume it is, you proceed accordingly. Invite friends round for dinner, they say "Love to", you assume they are pleased and will be coming. Ring your doctor about blood test results, you're told "All clear", you assume they are co-operating with your wish to know the truth.

Human communication proceeds from two fundamental assumptions - that the people you interact with are both co-operative and truthful in intent. That's not to say they necessarily are (or even should be), only that the way we interpret their utterances assumes that they are.

So, if instead of "All clear", the doctor says: "Um, actually, could you make an appointment to come in and talk about these results", then you proceed from the assumptions (co-operation, truth) and you interpret the request in a particular way (bad news).

The language philosopher H.P. Grice proposed four maxims - Relation, Manner, Quantity, Quality - by which we read meanings. If an utterance abides by the four maxims, then it can be interpreted at face value. If it is relevant, it abides by Relation. If it is unconvoluted, it abides by Manner. If it says as much as is needed, but no more than is needed, it abides by Quantity. If it is truthful, then it abides by Quality.

The doctor's "all clear" is relevant, straightforward, appropriately concise, based on facts believed to be true, and therefore means what it says literally.

Not so the doctor's alternative remark: "Um, actually, could you make an appointment to come in and talk about these results" This is vague, wordy, evasive and begs to be interpreted at a non-literal level. Its meaning resides in the "implicature", which is a fancy word for a kind of pragmatic grey space where inferences go to be unravelled. Like a holding bay.

Consider the following statements of denial issued at different times by Bill Clinton, Tony Abbott, Mark Latham and Bob Carr, respectively:

"I did, but I didn't inhale."

"It was a long time ago and it never happened."

"Yes, I did, and I have got to own up, I did inhale."

"I refer you to my previous answer: I haven't smoked it and when I didn't smoke it, I didn't inhale."

All men, all politicians, all on the past, all playing with denial in some way, even if, as in Latham 's case, by owning up, he's denying the need for a denial.

Take each and prise it open. We see how Clinton flouts the maxim of Manner, adding a qualification to his "I did" that is meant to ameliorate its effect, but, in fact, backfires.

Abbott also flouts Manner: he offers two remarks, each referred to as "it". The problem is, their propositional content makes them mutually exclusive. If it never happened, it wasn't a long time ago. If it was a long time ago, then it did happen.

Latham over-confesses, so violating the maxim of Quantity. He does it in triplicate: "yes" plus "I did" plus "I inhale(d)". He violates Manner by his convolutions: the confessional preface ("I have to own up") and the emphatic "did", both of which contribute to the very denial quality of a supposed non-denial.

Put differently, he "doth protest too much, methinks".

As for Carr (2004 prize-winner for most convoluted), he wittingly flouts all four maxims and gets away with it because the humour grants its own licence, radically shifting the conversational rules.

That's the logic in the courtroom formula: "How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?" You're forcibly constrained to the exact minimalist text of one out of two mutually exclusive options.

Good strategy for avoiding foot-in-mouth.