The logic behind the motive behind the words

It's one thing to look at words and see what was said.  It's quite another to look at words and see why something was said.

If someone were to say, "I enjoyed the trip. Nothing really happened other than I was a little cold most of the time," and then subsequently you came into knowledge that during the entire trip snow covered the ground, the cabin had only a wood stove in the main living area, and each night for two weeks the temperature fell below 32 degrees.  It would be easy to see that what was said was either an understatement about weather conditions or that the speaker wanted to emphasize enjoying the trip even against nature's odds of trying to spoil it.

Why someone would say something this way is not so clear.  This is the domain of pragmatics where context is important.  For example, the words might be a part of a joke, so that understatement (a little cold) contributes to the humor being created.  Or, the speaker is trying to spare the listener's feelings because the listener had paid for the speaker's trip.  Or, the speaker is trying to brag about her or his prowess in extreme conditions.  Or, the person speaking didn't want to ridicule the poor living conditions the listener has to endure regularly due to the listener's inability to pay for a better way of life.

But, given a context, why did someone use the word, "enjoy" if that were really not the case?  Why would someone say, "Nothing really happened," if something happened "most of the time?"  If the context is plain, it helps to understand the motive, but to ask why someone would use a circuitous way of speaking would yield information other than motive.  Perhaps a person's style is round-about because of a self-esteem problem.  Circuitous speaking means that a person has room for error in speaking since she or he is not assertive enough to speak with certainty.  Perhaps a person thinks that minimizing the conditions enhances the emotions (s)he feels about the trip.  Or perhaps the person wanted to lie about how (s)he felt about the trip for whatever reason by enhancing enjoyment and diminishing the cold.

The word choices definitely had a reason for being chosen.  Establishing context is the first step in understanding the reason.  Focusing on the semantics also helps to narrow in on the motive of the speaker.  But the word choices are indicators of something more exact, the bedrock that produces motive, the logic behind the motive.   One has to consider why "nothing really happened" instead of "nothing happened?"  Does the word really strengthen the statement of fact?  Or is the speaker hedging?  The only thing that happened was in the speaker's mind, not in the real world.  Why make a general statement, "Nothing really happened," and then negate, maybe refine, the statement with "other than" unless the speaker wants to highlight a negative quality?  Why use the words, "the trip," which is inclusive of the whole time, then say that something was not enjoyable "most of the time" except to further highlight the negative quality of the trip?

The answers of course tell you about the personality of the speaker and the pattern of logic he has used.  And that information is the well guarded secret most people want to keep from listeners.