C: I promise to pay you back next week.
D: Sure, and pigs will fly.
In this case, the maxims of relevance and quality are violated. D has just uttered a seemingly unrelated response, and it is obviously a falsity. However, the point here is to "match" what D thinks is a falsity uttered by C. This is a bit more polite than responding with "No, you won't."
E: How do you like my new dress?
F: Hmmm, [pause] ... Anything good on TV tonight?
Here, relevance is violated. F probably didn't like E's dress and thus F is attempting to shift the conversation to another topic, rather than give a dispreferred response (which is a topic that will be covered in future posts).
G: So, Sarah thinks you're cute, right?
H: Is Rome in Spain?
Similar to the first example, this illustrates responding to a question with a question. Keep in mind that one of the requirements for indirect speech acts to work is that both participants have shared knowledge about the context of the situation, and of the world in general. G will recognize that H responded indirectly, but whether H can interpret that response will depend on H's knowledge of geography.
One more, I'm sure you've all heard this one:
I: Name 3 things that are important in real estate.
J: Location, location, and location.
The maxim of quantity is violated here. Instead of naming 3 different things, location is repeated to get the point across that it is the most important thing and needs extra emphasis.
Sign up here with your email
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon