Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 13:3 (2003) ► pp.381–400
Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2003
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.3.02che
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.13.3.02che
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.
References (60)
Bertuccelli Papi, M. (1997) Implicitness. In J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 1997. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1-29.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Biber, D., and E. Finegan (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65.3: 487-517.
Brazil, D. (1995) A grammar of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Brown, G. (1989) Making sense: The interaction of linguistic expression and contextual information. Applied Linguistics 10.1: 97-108. BoP
Brown, P., and S. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., and G. Yule (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Carter, R., and M. McCarthy (1994) Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
Channell, J. (1994) Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Cheng, W., and M. Warren (1999a) Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal 231: 5-20. BoP
(1999b) Inexplicitness: What is it and should we be teaching it? Applied Linguistics 20.3: 293-315. BoP
Dascal, M. (1983) Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: Thought in language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. BoP
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.
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.
Gadzar, G. (1979) Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
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.
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.
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.
Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman. BoP
Hunston, S. (2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MetBib
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
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.
Kempson, R. (1977) Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
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. BoP
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP.
Mazzie, C.A. (1987) An experimental investigation of the determinants of implicitness in spoken and written discourse. Discourse Processes 101: 31-42. BoP
McQuiddy, I. (1986) Some conventional aspects of indirectness in conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
Miller, L. (1994) Japanese and American indirectness. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 5.1&21: 37- 55.
Placencia, M.E. (1995) Explicitness and ellipsis as features of conversational style in British English and Ecuadorian Spanish. IRAL 33.2: 129-141.
Quirk R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman. BoP
Ricento, T. (1987) Clausal ellipsis in multi-party conversation in English. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 751-775. BoP
Riley, K. (1988) Conversational implicature and unstated meaning in professional communication. The Technical Writing Teacher XV.2: 94-104.
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.
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.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. (1986)
Relevance: Communication and cognition
. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [2nd edn 1995].
Stubbs, M. (1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. BoP
. (1996) Text and corpus analysis. Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. BoP
Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in interaction. London: Longman. BoP
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.
Wierzbicka, A. (1986) Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English ‘approximatives’. Journal of Pragmatics 101: 597-613.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Cited by (23)
Cited by 23 other publications
Lee, William Wai Lam
Kotal, Anantaa, Karuna Pande Joshi & Anupam Joshi
Lai, Xiaoyu
Zhang, Grace & Vahid Parvaresh
Litvinski, Oleg
Koczogh, Helga Vanda
Parvaresh, Vahid
Parvaresh, Vahid
Cardona, Ana Llopis
2016. El uso de los aproximativosmás o menosyaproximadamenteen el continuo variacional. Spanish in Context 13:3 ► pp. 371 ff.
Parvaresh, Vahid & Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Brown, Laura C.
Lanteigne, Betty
2014. Speech event analysis of seventeenth-century military protocol in Hamlet, 1.1. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15:1 ► pp. 123 ff.
Marcellino, William M
Parvaresh, Vahid & Tahmineh Tayebi
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.
de Groot Ruiz, Adrian, T. J. S. Offerman & Sander Onderstal
Ladegaard, Hans J.
Zayts, Olga & M. Agnes Kang
Cotterill, Janet
Warren, Martin
Nikula, Tarja
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.
