Topic 12 - Meaning between the lines (Session A) > Inference and the Discourse Architecture of Drama > Task A > Answer

Inference and the Discourse Architecture of Drama

Task A - Our answer

You can get to the 'meaning between the lines' by using a chain of inference something like this:

You have asked me what I thought about the play and I could have given you a straightforward answer ('I liked it'/'I didn't like it') but have not done so.

Socially the preferred answer would have been 'I liked it', but I didn't say that, and so you can infer that I can't truthfully say that, or I would have done so.

It would be difficult to be openly critical ('I didn't like it') while leaving the theatre, as other people (e.g. the director) might overhear the remark, and be offended.

I made a positive remark about the costumes, which is polite, socially acceptable conversational behaviour. But other factors (e.g. how well the play was written, how good/innovative the director's interpretation of it is, how well it was acted) are usually more important when judging a play and its performance.

Therefore I must feel that I cannot say positive things about any of these more important factors and so I am leading you to infer that I was not impressed by any of them, and hence I was not impressed by the play and its performance overall.

What we need to understand in order to account for the 'meaning between the lines', or 'sub-text', are the mechanisms whereby these kinds of chains of inference can be constructed in particular contexts. This is what we will begin to explore on the 'Grice's Cooperative Principle' page.

Home ¦ Outline ¦ Contents ¦ Glossary