Chapter published in:
Implicitness: From lexis to discourse
Edited by Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 276] 2017
► pp. 201–215

Implicitness in the use of situation-bound utterances

|
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
Published online: 30 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.09kec
References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 On Our Mind: Salience Context and Figurative Language. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2003 Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Violi, Patrizia
2000 “Prototypicality, Typicality, and Context.” In Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. by Liliana Albertazzi, 103–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco
1999 “Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication.” Pragmatics 9: 487–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Bajkulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3 ► pp. 340 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2021. 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.