Indirect requests, relevance, and politeness

In the relevance-theoretic framework, maximal relevance is achieved when processing effort is minimized and cognitive effects are maximized. In line with the presumption of optimal relevance, the addressee (A) of an utterance not only assumes that the speaker (S)'s utterance is relevant enough for it to be worth processing: he expects S to choose an utterance that is the most relevant one compatible with her preferences and her abilities. In this paper, I offer a detailed relevance theoretic analysis of conventionalized indirect requests (IRs) such as Can you + verbal phrase (VP)? in terms of maximal and optimal relevance. I show that, according to standard relevance theory, the request meaning of Can you VP? IRs is communicated as an implicature, which means that it is, in theory, more complex to access than when it is explicated by the imperative counterparts (VP!) of IRs. However, the existence of pragmatic routines, supported by recent experimental evidence, enables short-circuited inferencing of the IR meaning. These IRs do not increase processing costs, which indicates that, as imperatives, utterances Can you VP? can be maximally relevant for the performance of requests. Arguing that politeness effects are not systematically communicated with IRs, I propose that these indirect expressions are preferred because they enable speakers to avoid impoliteness effects, and they are, in such circumstances, optimally relevant stimuli for requesting.SCOPUS: ar.jDecretOANoAutActif