Cover not available
Part of
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 201–216

Chapter 9
Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances

| State University of New York, Albany
This chapter discusses the nature of implicit knowledge encoded in situation-bound utterances (SBUs) that are defined as highly conventionalized, prefabricated pragmatic units whose occurrences are tied to standardized communicative situations because they serve as interactional patterns and rituals that usually mean the same to all speakers of a particular speech community. It will be argued that there is a strong connection between implicitness and conventions of usage in language use. Conventional routine expressions like SBUs encode information that is equally available for all members of the given speech community. This information is usually implicit because the functional meaning of expressions is rarely reflected in their compositional meaning. The paradox of the use of SBUs is that although most of them are characterized by a high level of implicitness, they may still represent the most direct way to express some social function.
Keywords: situation-bound utterances, conventions of usage, tacit knowledge, situational context, experience-based context
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Characteristics of situation-bound utterances
  • 3.Tacit knowledge
  • 4.Context-dependence of implicitly conveyed information
    • 4.1Understanding context
    • 4.2SBUs are context sensitive in different degrees
  • 5.Can SBUs be underspecified?
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.09kec
References (28)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1998. “On the Phraseology of Spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent Word-Combinations.” In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, ed. by Paul Cowie Anthony, 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2016. “Revisiting the Typology of Pragmatic Interpretations.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communicative Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eemeren, van Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst, 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. “The Need for a Frame Semantics within Linguistics.” Statistical Methods in Linguistics 12: 5–29.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1884/1980. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Trans. by John L. Austin (2nd ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Gairns, Ruth, and Stuart Redman. 1986. Working with Words: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1997. “Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 8: 183–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience Context and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan, 2003. Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca.” In Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, ed. by István Kecskés, and Laurence R. Horn, 191–219. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Situation-bound Utterances as Pragmatic Acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1976/1679. Philosophical Papers and Letters. Trans. and ed. by Leroy E. Loemker. Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. “Language and Mind: Let’s Get the Issues Straight!” In Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Cognition, ed. by Gentner Dedre, and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 25–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth. 2008. “A Difference of Some Consequence between Conventions and Rules.” Topoi 27:87–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. “Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts.” In Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9), ed. by Peter Cole, 261–280. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, James R., and Jeanette S. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam Hilary. 1973. “Meaning and Reference.” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 699–711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Violi, Patrizia. 2000. “Prototypicality, Typicality, and Context.” In Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. by Liliana Albertazzi, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921/1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. by Charles Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 1999. “Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication.” Pragmatics 9: 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, Anna Bączkowska, Chaya Liebeskind, Giedre Valunaite Oleskeviciene & Slavko Žitnik
2023. An integrated explicit and implicit offensive language taxonomy. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:1 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Bączkowska, Anna
2022. "HOPE YOU HAVE A SHIT BIRTHDAY YOU FAT CUNT”– cognitive strategies, rhetorical figures and linguistic means used in insulting Tweets. Forum Filologiczne Ateneum :1(10)2022 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Bączkowska, Anna
2023. Implicit offensiveness from linguistic and computational perspectives: A study of irony and sarcasm. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:2 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2022. Avoidance of cognitive efforts as a risk factor in interaction. Discourse Studies 24:3 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.