1887
Volume 13, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The ability to do indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness is a key component in the repertoire of all competent discoursers and these are commonplace phenomena in written and spoken discourses, particularly in conversations. The study reported in the paper seeks to delineate and exemplify these three terms which are used frequently in the literature, but which are potentially confusing as they are not always unambiguously defined and consistently applied. The purpose of the study is to describe the differences between the three terms in terms of their pragmatic usage and functions, drawing upon a corpus of naturally-occurring conversational data between Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English. In so doing, this study underlines the widespread occurrence of these forms of language use and the ways in which participants in spoken discourse employ them to jointly construct both context and meaning.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.3.02che
2003-01-01
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, J.L
    (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach, K
    (1994) Conversational implicature. Mind and Language 9.2: 124-162. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Bertuccelli Papi, M
    (1997) Implicitness. In J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 1997. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-29. doi: 10.1075/hop.3.imp2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.3.imp2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , and E. Finegan
    (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language65.3: 487-517. doi: 10.2307/415220
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brazil, D
    (1995) A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1997) The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, G
    (1989) Making sense: The interaction of linguistic expression and contextual information. Applied Linguistics 10.1: 97-108. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.97
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.97 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P. , and S. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, G. , and G. Yule
    (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carter, R. , and M. McCarthy
    (1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1997) Exploring spoken discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Channell, J
    (1994) Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cheng, W. , and M. Warren
    (1999a) Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal23: 5-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1999b) Inexplicitness: What is it and should we be teaching it?Applied Linguistics20.3: 293-315. doi: 10.1093/applin/20.3.293
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.293 [Google Scholar]
  16. Crystal, D. , and D. Davy
    (1975) Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dascal, M
    (1983) Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.iv.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.iv.1 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dines, E.R
    (1980) Variation in discourse - “and stuff like that”. Language in Society9: 13-31. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500007764
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007764 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dubois, B.L
    (1987) “Something in the order of around forty to forty-four”: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society16: 527-541. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500000361
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000361 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R
    (1985) Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development. In S. Gass and C.G. Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, pp. 66-81.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gadzar, G
    (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goatly, A
    (1995) Directness, indirectness and deference in the language of classroom management: Advice for teacher trainees?IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 33.3: 267-284.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Graddol, D.
    (1999) The decline of the native speaker. In D. Graddol and U.H. Meinhof (eds.), English in a Changing World. Aila Review13: 57-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Graddol, D. , and U.H. Meinhof
    (eds.) (1999)  English in a Changing World . Aila Review13
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Grice, H.P
    (1975) Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 44-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Halliday, M.A.K. , and R. Hasan
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. He, Z.R
    (2000) A further study of pragmatic vagueness. Journal of Foreign Languages 125.1: 7-13.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hunston, S
    (2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524773
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jucker, A.H. , and S. Smith
    (1996) Explicit and implicit ways of enhancing common ground in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics6.1: 1-18.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Labrie, N. , and C. Quell
    (1997) Your language, my language or English? The potential language choice in communication among nationals of the European Union. World Englishes16: 3-26. doi: 10.1111/1467‑971X.00043
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00043 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kempson, R
    (1977) Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kennedy, G
    (1987) Quantification and the use of English: A case study of one aspect of the learner’s task. Applied Linguistics 8.3: 264-286. doi: 10.1093/applin/8.3.264
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/8.3.264 [Google Scholar]
  34. Leech, G
    (1980) Principles of pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Levinson, S
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mazzie, C.A
    (1987) An experimental investigation of the determinants of implicitness in spoken and written discourse. Discourse Processes10: 31-42. doi: 10.1080/01638538709544657
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638538709544657 [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarthy, M
    (1998) Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. McQuiddy, I
    (1986) Some conventional aspects of indirectness in conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
  39. Mey, J
    (2001) Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Miller, L
    (1994) Japanese and American indirectness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication5.1&2: 37- 55.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Placencia, M.E
    (1995) Explicitness and ellipsis as features of conversational style in British English and Ecuadorian Spanish. IRAL33.2: 129-141.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Quirk R. , S. Greenbaum , G. Leech , and J. Svartvik
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ricento, T
    (1987) Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of Pragmatics11: 751-775. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90112‑3
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90112-3 [Google Scholar]
  44. Riley, K
    (1988) Conversational implicature and unstated meaning in professional communication. The Technical Writing Teacher XV.2: 94-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, J.R
    (1975) Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sew, J.W
    (1997) Power pragmatics in Asian languages. Language Sciences 19.4: 357- 367. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(97)00001‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(97)00001-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sigurd, B
    (1988) Round numbers. Language in Society17: 243-252. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500012781
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012781 [Google Scholar]
  48. Sinclair, J. McH
    (1991) Shared knowledge. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. In J.E. Alatis (ed.), Linguistics and language pedagogy: State of the art. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 489-500.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sinclair, J. , and D. Brazil
    (1982) Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sperber, D. , and D. Wilson
    (1986)  Relevance: Communication and cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [2nd edn 1995].
  51. Stenström, A-B
    (1994) An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Stubbs, M
    (1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (1996) Text and corpus analysis. Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Thomas, J
    (1995) Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. van Dijk, T.A
    (1979) Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3.5: 447-457. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(79)90019‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(79)90019-5 [Google Scholar]
  56. Varonis, E.M. , and S.M. Gass
    (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics6.1: 71-90. doi: 10.1093/applin/6.1.71
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wierzbicka, A
    (1986) Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English ‘approximatives’. Journal of Pragmatics10: 597-613. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90016‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90016-0 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wittgenstein, L
    (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Yule, G
    (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, J.Z
    (1990) Ranking of indirectness in professional writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20.3: 291-305. doi: 10.2190/8UR2‑F7HM‑52CK‑U6F8
    https://doi.org/10.2190/8UR2-F7HM-52CK-U6F8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.13.3.02che
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error