Interpreting Indirect Answers By Abduction

In this paper we apply Peirce's theory of abduction to the interpretation of indirect answers and illustrate the process of interpreting indirect answers is abductive.Abduction is concerned with the reasoning which starts from observed facts and moves towards explanatory hypotheses. Peirce proposed the following logical form for abduction: The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course; Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."Abduction starts with the observation of a surprising fact. We experience a surprise when the observed fact is against our background expectation. The experience brings us genuine doubt. Genuine doubt forces us to interrogate the surprising fact, and then to seek backwards the reason behind the fact and generate a new hypothesis to explain the meaning of the observed fact. This is precisely the way that abduction works in relation to the interpretation of indirect answers.In daily communication, indirect answers happen fairly frequently. In this paper we take indirect answers to yes/no questions as an example for discussion. When a yes/no question is asked, the questioner expects the responder to give an evaluation of the truth of the questioned proposition, i.e. he expects that the responder will give an affirmative "Yes" or a negative "No". However, in the case of an indirect answer being given, the questioner's expectation will be broken up, for the answer, taken literally, is neither an affirmative "Yes" nor a negative "No". This causes the questioner to experience a surprise and interrogate why the speaker has said in such a way. This interrogation forces him to seek the reason behind the answer and he...