Cover not available

Article published In: New Perspectives on Utterance Interpretation and Implicit Contents
Edited by Daniela Rossi and Nicolas Ruytenbeek
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28] 2014
► pp. 45–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The importance of being indirect

A new nomenclature for indirect speech

 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Published online: 28 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.28.03ter
Standard accounts of indirect speech share two assumptions: that indirect speech always has a direct alternative, and that it is strategic. I survey a number of cases that challenge one or both of these assumptions and propose a new nomenclature for indirect speech that crucially includes, in addition to cases where indirect speech is strategic, cases where it is ‘enabling.’ The enabling potential of indirect speech lies in allowing us to give voice to thoughts or experiences that may be possible to express propositionally only in part. In such cases, the speaker does not start off with a direct alternative in mind but rather uses speech to invite the hearer to help her develop an inchoate thought. Including these cases under the same scheme allows us to consider ways other than recognition of the speaker’s intention in which indirect meanings may arise, such as through shared experience and the interlocutors’ habitus. The proposed nomenclature thus yields a multi-faceted view of indirect speech that goes beyond its current, formally driven, understanding.
References (46)
Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, Arin. 2001. “Advice-giving in Turkish: ‘Superiority’ or ‘Solidarity’.” In Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish, ed. by A. Bayraktaroğlu and M. Sifianou, 177–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bax, Marcel. 1999. “Ritual Levelling: The balance between the Eristic and the Contractual Motive in Hostile Verbal encounters in Medieval Romance and Early Modern Drama.” In Historical Dialogue Analysis, ed. by A.H. Jucker, G. Fritz, and F. Lebsanft, 35–80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binkley, Timothy. 1979. “The Principle of Expressibility.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39 (3): 307–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Jane Demmen. 2011. “Nineteenth-century English Politeness” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12 (1/2): 49–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. “Is Sybil There? Some American English Directives.” Language in Society 51: 25–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Wait for me Roller-skate. In Child Discourse, ed. by C. Mitchell-­Kernan and S. Ervin-Tripp, 165–188. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glucksberg, Sam. 2003. “The Psycholinguistics of Metaphor.” Trends in Cognitive Science 71: 92–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Edward. 1977. Beyond Culture. Garden City, New York: Anchor/Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah and Smith, Rachel. 2001. “Polysp: A Polysystemic, Phonetically-Rich Approach to Speech Understanding.” Italian Journal of Linguistics – Rivista di Linguistica 131: 99–188.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Healey, Patrick. 1997. “Expertise or Expert-ese?: The Emergence of Task-oriented Sub-languages.” In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 7th–10th August, Stanford University, California, ed. by M.G. Shafto and P. Langley, 301–306.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. “A New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature.” In Meaning, Form and Use in Context, ed. by D. Schiffrin, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huls, Erica and Wijk, Carel van. 2012. “The Development of a Directive Repertoire in Context: A Case Study of a Dutch Speaking Young Child.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 83–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott & Gosh Johnson, Erica. 2010. “Four Forms of Interactional Indirection.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 292–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. “‘The Logic of Politeness or Minding your p’s and q’s.’” Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society , 292–305.
Lee, James, and Pinker, Steven. 2010. Rationales for Indirect Speech: The Theory of the Strategic Speaker. Psychological Review 1171: 785–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lempert, Michael. 2012. “Indirectness.” In The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, ed. by C. Bratt Paulston, S.F. Kiesling & E.S. Rangel, 180–204. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. “Three levels of meaning.” In Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, ed. by F. Palmer, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lumsden, Joanne, Miles, Lynden, Richardson, Michael, Smith, Carlene & Macrae, Neil. 2012. “Who syncs?: Social Motives and Interpersonal Coordination.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (3): 746–751. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElree, Brian and Johanna Nordlie. 1999. “Literal and Figurative Interpretations Are Computed in Equal Time.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 61: 486–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miles, Lynden, Nind, Louise, Henderson, Zoe & Macrae, Neil. 2010. “Moving memories: Behavioral Synchrony and Memory for Self and Others.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46 (2): 457–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mills, Gregory. 2007. The Development of Semantic Co-ordination in Dialogue: The Role of Direct Interaction. PhD diss., Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London.
. 2011. “The Emergence of Procedural Conventions in Dialogue.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society . Boston, USA. [URL]
Pinker, Stephen, Nowak, Martin and Lee, James. 2008. “The Logic of Indirect Speech.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1051: 833–838. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pugmire, David. 1998. Rediscovering Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Récanati, François. 1994. “Contextualism and Anti-Contextualism in the Philosophy of Language.” In Foundations of Speech Act Theory, ed. by S. Tsohatzidis, 156–166. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and semantics. Vol. III: Speech acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shapiro, Amy and Gregory Murphy. 1993. “Can you Answer a Question for me? Models of Processing Indirect Speech Acts.” Journal of Memory and Language321: 211–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1997. “Politeness and Off-Record Indirectness.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1261: 163–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2010. “‘Direct’ and ‘indirect’ communicative acts in semiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2): 337–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soltys, Jessica, Marina Terkourafi and Napoleon Katsos. 2014. “Disentangling Politeness Theory and the Strategic Speaker Approach: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Predictions.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11 (1): 31–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2010. “Abduction and Identity in Family Interaction: Ventriloquizing as Indirectness.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 307–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2011a. “The puzzle of indirect speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2861–2865. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Why direct speech is not a natural default: Rejoinder to Steven Pinker’s ‘Indirect Speech, Politeness, Deniability, and Relationship Negotiation’.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2869–2871. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, Jennifer. 1986. The dynamics of discourse: A pragmatic analysis of confrontational interaction. PhD Diss. University of Lancaster.
Trosborg, Ann. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Traci, Paul Drew and John Local. 2011. “Responding Indirectly.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2434–2451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (23)

Cited by 23 other publications

Achimova, Asya, Michael Franke, Martin V. Butz & Gareth J. Baxter
2025. The alignment model of indirect communication. PLOS One 20:5 ► pp. e0323839 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé & Luna Filipović
2025. “I never said that”. Pragmatics and Society 16:2 ► pp. 174 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé & Michael Haugh
2024. The role of inference and inferencing in pragmatic models of communication. Journal of Pragmatics 229 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Haugh, Michael
2024. Ostensible offers, politeness and sincere hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Keyuan, Ling Zhou & Shaojie Zhang
2023. Explicit and implicit (im)politeness: A corpus-based study of the Chinese formulaic expression “Nikezhen+X”. Lingua 291 ► pp. 103560 ff. DOI logo
Filipović, Luna
2022. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Miscommunication in UK Police Interviews and US Police Interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 37:2 ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sümeyra & Luna Filipović
2022. Lost in translation, apparently: Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish–English Translation and judgment task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 25:5 ► pp. 739 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Ling & Shaojie Zhang
2022. A multifunctional analysis of off-record indirectness in Chinese interactions. Language Sciences 90 ► pp. 101459 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Xi & Jiayi Wang
2021. First order and second order indirectness in Korean and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 178 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé
2021. Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Elder, Chi-Hé
2024. Pragmatic Inference, DOI logo
Terkourafi, Marina
2021. Inference and Implicature. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Terkourafi, Marina
2023. A Speech-Act Theoretic Analysis of White (Prosocial) Lies. In Sbisà on Speech as Action [Philosophers in Depth, ], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas
2020. Do indirect requests communicate politeness?An experimental study of conventionalized indirect requests in French email communication. Journal of Politeness Research 16:1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas
2024. Indirectness. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Ameka, Felix K. & Marina Terkourafi
2019. What if…? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics 145 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Meibauer, Jörg
2019. What is an indirect speech act?. Pragmatics & Cognition 26:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa
2019. Preliminaries. In The Praxis of Indirect Reports [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 21], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Morady Moghaddam, Mostafa
2019. Politeness in Indirect Reporting. In The Praxis of Indirect Reports [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 21], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Wen, Francis Y. Lin & Richard P. Cooper
2019. Relevance theory, pragmatic inference and cognitive architecture. Philosophical Psychology 32:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Culpeper, Jonathan & Marina Terkourafi
2017. Pragmatic Approaches (Im)politeness. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Sifianou, Maria & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2017. (Im)politeness and Cultural Variation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue