1

I walk into a store and ask the clerk: "Do you have any diet Dr Pepper?" The clerk answers, "We have regular Dr Pepper."

Searching for a description of this type of response, I've found a lot of material on question dodging. But in this case, the respondent doesn't intend to dodge the question or avoid answering it.

I repeat, this isn't question dodging, evasion, or obfuscation like a politician might engage in. In those cases, the politician doesn't want to answer the question, and knows he isn't answering the question.

In this case, the respondent knows the answer to the question, and thinks he is providing it sufficiently. In his mind, his response logically implies an answer to the question posed, but that logic is bad/does not follow.

I find this type of answer extremely annoying. Basically the respondent is implying an answer to my question and making me decode his response, when he could instead just answer my question directly. The problem with this type of response in general is that I would be expected to take future actions/make future decisions as if I have the information I requested, when I really don't.

Descriptions of this type of answer that I've found are "non-answer" and "non-response," but I was just wondering if there was an explicit name for this horrible communication tic.

GotYaNumba
  • 27
  • I would call them scripted answers. Apple has them down to a fine art (in their stores), and you feel as if you can't get a straight answer out of anyone. – Mick Mar 29 '17 at 21:01
  • In politics, that's referred to as a "non-responsive response". General descriptors would include "evasive/evasion", "obfuscation", etc. In politics, it's purpose is to appear to answer without actually saying anything. In retail, it's more of a sales tool. If they answered directly, the only information you have is that they don't have what you want. Instead, they suggest something similar they do have on the chance you will find the alternative acceptable. So the setting influences the appropriate term. – fixer1234 Mar 29 '17 at 21:08
  • 4
    This is what's know technically in linguistics as a Gricean implicature. That's from H.P Grice, the philosopher, whose "Logic of Conversation" suggested general maxims for cooperative speech, whose violations were responsible for a great deal of indirect discourse. – John Lawler Mar 29 '17 at 21:08
  • 3
    Its not a non answer, its trying to cajole you toward the closest option rather than tell you frankly they don't have what you want (which is more likely to cause a fit than suggesting you have something close is). – developerwjk Mar 29 '17 at 21:15
  • 1
    If the respondent is 'implying an answer to my question and making me decode his response', how do you know they are not deliberately dodging the question / avoiding answering it? – Edwin Ashworth Mar 29 '17 at 21:15
  • 1
    @fixer1234 When a politician doesn't want to answer a question, she may evade it by question dodging. I feel like this is a completely different scenario. The respondent thinks he's answering the question sufficiently, but really, he's just tasking me to jump to a conclusion-that there is no diet Dr Pepper in the store-without any explicit confirmation of that fact. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:21
  • @fixer1234 When I think of situations where I've run into this, some are when I've been a customer dealing with a service representative; but I've also dealt with it in the workplace.

    For example: Q: "What are the location names for the following addresses?" A: "This location is no longer in service."

     – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:25
  • @developerwjk In this particular case, you might be right, but as I say above, people do this in the workplace too, not because they want to intentionally dodge the question, but because they lazily (and incorrectly) think that their answer satisfies the question. This is what I'm trying to get at. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:28
  • 3
    A retail exchange is a special case. Sales people are taught to steer you to something else if they don't have what you want. They aren't trying to be evasive, just trying to save a sale. In a normal conversation, there may be no conscious attempt to not directly answer. They may just be saying something that seems equivalent to an answer in their own mind. I'm not sure it's laziness. It may just be an attempt to provide what seems like supplemental useful information, assuming the missing information is implied by their answer. They may not recognize that the response is ambiguous. – fixer1234 Mar 29 '17 at 21:33
  • @EdwinAshworth because he has no reason to. I'm curious about the case when people genuinely think they are answering the question, but in fact they are not, and their response only implies an answer. These responses are bad because the questioner is meant to ultimately assume an answer to the question without a relevant response. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:37
  • 1
    @fixer1234 the retail example is made up to demonstrate the type of response in general. I'm not talking about salesmanship here. I'm talking about responses in general conversations (workplace, transnational, and otherwise), where the respondent (unintentionally) gives the questioner an implication to interpret when they could just answer the question directly instead. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:42
  • I'm still puzzled by 'Basically the respondent is implying an answer to my question and making me decode his response, when he could instead just answer my question directly.' This assumes he knows the direct answer to your question. In which case, either he's prevaricating or he has attention / comprehension problems. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 29 '17 at 21:52
  • It might be useful to make the non-retail clarification in the question. In general conversation, it is frustrating for the asker, and may seem like laziness or not careful listening to what was asked. That may be the case some of the time. But often, the person is trying (unsuccessfully) to be extra helpful, providing either more information than what you requested (direct answer being implied), or hoping that the tangential information they're able to provide will be more useful than just saying they don't know the answer. I don't know if the different motivations imply different terms. – fixer1234 Mar 29 '17 at 21:54
  • 1
    The prior linked questions all deal with evasion. My question is more about a respondent who assumes he's satisfying the question, because his response obviously implies the answer. He expects us to jump to a conclusion that he thinks logically follows, when it actually doesn't.

    He thinks "We have regular Dr Pepper" sufficiently implies that there is no diet Dr Pepper in the store, when it doesn't imply that at all.

     – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 21:55
  • @EdwinAshworth "making me decode" might be a poor choice of words on my part. In the case I'm talking about, the respondent knows the direct answer to the question (he knows there is no diet Dr Pepper in the store). I don't think this qualifies as evasion because he honestly thinks his response implies an answer, whereas a politician who's avoiding an answer knows he's obfuscating. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 22:01
  • It's basically just giving a response to you rather than a correct (Yes / no / I don't know) answer to your question. I don't think you'll find a more specific term than 'non-answer'. The scenario you spell out involves self-deception. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 29 '17 at 22:06
  • I would call the shifted response a counteroffer. You first imply an offer to buy diet soda, and the counteroffer, which may not interest you, is regular soda. Just as you are not asking about the diet soda for research other than purchase (Do you have diet soda? Sure, we have that in stock, why? Well, then may I please have one, not in theory, but now?), the reply implies Diet, no, but regular, yes. – Yosef Baskin Mar 29 '17 at 22:11
  • My real-life example:

    I go to the casino poker room and walk up to the podium. I ask the floor-person "do you have 5/10 Fixed Limit Holdem?" In other words, "do you deal this particular game format such that I can play it."

    Floor-person's response: "We have 5/10 No Limit."

    Me: "That doesn't answer my question."

    Floor-person: "Yes it does." In other words, 'you should have been able to logically conclude that the answer to your question was 'no' based on my response because my response sufficiently implies 'no' to your question'

    Me: "No it doesn't."

     – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 22:11
  • @YosefBaskin Yeah, I think you've got it. I know the clerk thinks the response sufficiently implies an answer, because they would take this answer to mean there's no diet soda in the store. What bothers me about this type of response is that I'm left with relying on the logic that [we have regular soda] --implies--> [we don't have diet soda]. There's no explicit reason why this should be true. Why should I have to make future decisions based on responses like these when the respondent can instead deliver the answer asked for. – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 22:23
  • 1
    Pretty much everyone who does not have autism will correctly infer the correct answer. Inferences like these are an inherent part of human conversation, and it's disingenuous to say that they are non-answers. They do not provide a precise, unequivocal answer to the exact question you asked, but that is the case for many, many different types of answers we give in normal conversation. If someone asks you, “What I do if I cut my hand?” and you answer, “Put on a bandage”, you're doing the same thing: the correct answer is “Bleed”; but that's not particularly useful. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Mar 29 '17 at 22:43
  • Best answer was given by @JohnLawler: implicature. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=implicature+examples&*

    The example given in the first link is: Q: Will Sally be at the meeting tonight? A: Her car broke down.

     – GotYaNumba Mar 29 '17 at 23:03
  • 1
    @John Lawler every time I read one of your answers, I know I'm likely to learn something :) – Gary Mar 29 '17 at 23:09

0 Answers0