Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 13:3 (2003) ► pp.381–400

Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer

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.

Keywords: Inexplicitness, English conversations, Indirectness, Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English, Vagueness
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2003
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.3.02che
References
Austin, J.L
(1962) How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K
(1994) Conversational implicature. Mind and Language 9.2: 124-162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M
(1997) Implicitness. In J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 1997. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D
(1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., and E. Finegan
(1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65.3: 487-517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brazil, D
(1995) A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1997) The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, G
(1989) Making sense: The interaction of linguistic expression and contextual information. Applied Linguistics 10.1: 97-108. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., and S. Levinson
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., and G. Yule
(1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., and M. McCarthy
(1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1997) Exploring spoken discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Channell, J
(1994) Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., and M. Warren
(1999a) Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal 231: 5-20.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1999b) Inexplicitness: What is it and should we be teaching it? Applied Linguistics 20.3: 293-315. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D., and D. Davy
(1975) Advanced conversational English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dascal, M
(1983) Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dines, E.R
(1980) Variation in discourse - “and stuff like that”. Language in Society 91: 13-31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, B.L
(1987) “Something in the order of around forty to forty-four”: Imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society 161: 527-541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gadzar, G
(1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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
Graddol, D.
(1999) The decline of the native speaker. In D. Graddol and U.H. Meinhof (eds.), English in a Changing World. Aila Review131: 57-68.Google Scholar
Graddol, D., and U.H. Meinhof
(eds.) (1999)  English in a Changing World . Aila Review 131Google Scholar
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
Halliday, M.A.K
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
He, Z.R
(2000) A further study of pragmatic vagueness. Journal of Foreign Languages 125.1: 7-13.Google Scholar
Hunston, S
(2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  MetBibGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A.H., and S. Smith
(1996) Explicit and implicit ways of enhancing common ground in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 6.1: 1-18.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Englishes 161: 3-26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R
(1977) Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
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 logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
(1980) Principles of pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Levinson, S
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzie, C.A
(1987) An experimental investigation of the determinants of implicitness in spoken and written discourse. Discourse Processes 101: 31-42. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M
(1998) Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McQuiddy, I
(1986) Some conventional aspects of indirectness in conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
Mey, J
(2001) Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, L
(1994) Japanese and American indirectness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 5.1&21: 37- 55.Google Scholar
Placencia, M.E
(1995) Explicitness and ellipsis as features of conversational style in British English and Ecuadorian Spanish. IRAL 33.2: 129-141.Google Scholar
Quirk R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ricento, T
(1987) Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 751-775. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Riley, K
(1988) Conversational implicature and unstated meaning in professional communication. The Technical Writing Teacher XV.2: 94-104.Google Scholar
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
Sew, J.W
(1997) Power pragmatics in Asian languages. Language Sciences 19.4: 357- 367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurd, B
(1988) Round numbers. Language in Society 171: 243-252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Sinclair, J., and D. Brazil
(1982) Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson
(1986)  Relevance: Communication and cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [2nd edn 1995].
Stenström, A-B
(1994) An introduction to spoken interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M
(1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1996) Text and corpus analysis. Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J
(1995) Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T.A
(1979) Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3.5: 447-457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E.M., and S.M. Gass
(1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6.1: 71-90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
(1986) Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English ‘approximatives’. Journal of Pragmatics 101: 597-613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L
(1953) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yule, G
(1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J.Z
(1990) Ranking of indirectness in professional writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 20.3: 291-305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 26 other publications

Brown, Laura C.
2014. A public backstage: The pleasures and possibilities of roadside shop talk in Tamil Nadu, India. Language & Communication 34 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Cardona, Ana Llopis
2016. El uso de los aproximativosmás o menosyaproximadamenteen el continuo variacional. Spanish in Context 13:3 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Cotterill, Janet
2007. ‘I Think He Was Kind of Shouting or Something’: Uses and Abuses of Vagueness in the British Courtroom. In Vague Language Explored, ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
de Groot Ruiz, Adrian, T. J. S. Offerman & Sander Onderstal
2011. Power and the Privilege of Clarity: An Analysis of Bargaining Power and Information Transmission. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Fernández, Julieta
2017. The language functions of tipo in Argentine vernacular. Journal of Pragmatics 114 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Jimenez, Abril
2022. The Effects of L2 Spanish Proficiency and Length of Exposure Abroad in the Expression of Imprecise Quantities. Languages 7:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
Jin, Yingzhe & Xinren Chen
2020. “Mouren” (“Somebody”) can be you-know-who: A case study of mock referential vagueness in Chinese Weibo posts. Journal of Pragmatics 164 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koczogh, Helga Vanda
2017. Udvariasság/Udvariatlanság és (in)direktség az egyet nem értés beszédaktusában. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 4:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kotal, Anantaa, Karuna Pande Joshi & Anupam Joshi
2020. 2020 IEEE 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Ladegaard, Hans J.
2011. Negotiation style, speech accommodation and small talk in Sino-Western business negotiations: A Hong Kong case study. Intercultural Pragmatics 8:2 DOI logo
Lai, Xiaoyu
2019. Impoliteness in English and Chinese online diners’ reviews. Journal of Politeness Research 15:2 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
Lanteigne, Betty
2014. Speech event analysis of seventeenth-century military protocol in Hamlet, 1.1. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Lee, William Wai Lam
2021. Emotion in business communication: A comparative study of attitude markers in the discourse of U.S. and mainland Chinese corporations. Discourse & Communication 15:6 ► pp. 629 ff. DOI logo
Litvinski, Oleg
2018. Emerging Technology: Toward a Conceptual Definition. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance 9:6 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo
Marcellino, William M
2014. Talk like a Marine: USMC linguistic acculturation and civil–military argument. Discourse Studies 16:3 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Nikula, Tarja
2005. English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education 16:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid
2017. Panegyrists, Vagueness and the Pragmeme. In The Pragmeme of Accommodation: The Case of Interaction around the Event of Death [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 13], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid
2018. ‘We Are Going to Do a Lot of Things for College Tuition’: Vague Language in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Debates. Corpus Pragmatics 2:2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid & Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
2016. The impact of task structure on the use of vague expressions by EFL learners. The Language Learning Journal 44:4 ► pp. 436 ff. DOI logo
Parvaresh, Vahid & Tahmineh Tayebi
2014. Vaguely Speaking in Persian. Discourse Processes 51:7 ► pp. 565 ff. DOI logo
Van De Mieroop, Dorien
2014. On the use of ‘we’ in Flemish World War II interviews. In Constructing Collectivity [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 239], ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Warren, Martin
2007. { / [ Oh ] Not a < ^ Lot > }: Discourse Intonation and Vague Language. In Vague Language Explored, ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo
Zayts, Olga & M. Agnes Kang
2009. “So, what test do you prefer?” Negotiating politic behaviour in an L2 prenatal genetic counselling setting in Hong Kong. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 5:1 DOI logo
Zhang, Grace
2011. Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics 8:4 DOI logo
Zhang, Grace & Vahid Parvaresh
2019. Elastic Language in the English Data. In Elastic Language in Persuasion and Comforting, ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. The Politics of Person Reference [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 320], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 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.