The first reason may be the logic of plausible deniability. In a simple case like bribing a police officer, the appeal of a veiled bribe is intuitively clear: If some officers are corrupt and would accept the bribe, but others are honest and might arrest the driver for bribery, an indirect bribe can be detected by the corrupt cop while not being blatant enough for the honest cop to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. A simple game-theoretic model can delineate the circumstances in which indirect speech is an optimal solution to this problem.
Second, when relationships are ambiguous, a divergent understanding between the parties can lead to the aversive emotion we call ‘‘awkwardness.’’ There are awkward moments in a workplace or university when an underling or student makes a transition from a subordinate (dominance) to something closer to a friend (communality). Good friends (communality) are advised not to engage in a business transaction (reciprocity), like the sale of a car or a house, which can endanger the friendship. The ambiguity between dominance and sex (a kind of communal relationship) is the battleground of sexual harassment conflicts, and the ambiguity between friendship and sex gives rise to the frisson of dating.
Third, when there are implications instead of blunt words, the speaker is given ‘‘the benefit of the doubt,’’ and the relationship can remain unchanged. The deniability, then, doesn’t have to be plausible, only possible. Humans employ several, mutually incompatible, modes of cooperation and, as a result, are extremely touchy about their relationships. Imagine that Harry says, ‘‘Would you like to come up and see my etchings?’’ and Sally demurs. There is little or no uncertainty about Harry’s intent, and none about Sally’s: Sally knows that she has turned down an overture, and Harry knows that she has turned down an overture. However, Sally doesn’t necessarily know that Harry knows; she might think to herself, ‘‘Maybe Harry thinks I’m naı¨ve.’’ In addition, Harry doesn’t necessarily know that Sally knows that he knows; he might think to himself, ‘‘Maybe Sally thinks I’m obtuse.’’ Although there is individual knowledge, there is no common knowledge, and they can maintain the fiction of friendship.
Also, people always behave as if they are playing to an audience. Overt propositions, may be transmitted perfectly along chains of gossipers (in the same way that other digital media, such as files of music or images, can be transmitted losslessly). According to this hypothesis, the deniability is plausible to the virtual audience, even if it is not particularly plausible to the hearer, and people tacitly consult the reactions of a virtual audience in retaining or switching relationship types.
Also, people always behave as if they are playing to an audience. Overt propositions, may be transmitted perfectly along chains of gossipers (in the same way that other digital media, such as files of music or images, can be transmitted losslessly). According to this hypothesis, the deniability is plausible to the virtual audience, even if it is not particularly plausible to the hearer, and people tacitly consult the reactions of a virtual audience in retaining or switching relationship types.
The paradigm illustration of common knowledge is the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. When the boy called out, ‘‘The emperor is naked!’’ he was not telling the onlookers anything they didn’t already know. Yet he was conveying knowledge nonetheless: Now everyone knew that everyone else knew, and that everyone else knew that they knew, and so on, and that common knowledge licensed the people to challenge the dominance relationship commanded by the emperor. The moral for the present theory is that language is an efficient way of generating common knowledge. Indirect speech provides shared individual knowledge, whereas direct speech provides common knowledge, and relationships are maintained or nullified by common knowledge of the relationship type.
