Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- 5 The Cultural, Contextual, and Computational Dimensions of Common Ground
- 6 Role of Context
- 7 (Mis/Non)Understanding in Intercultural Interactions
- 8 Creativity and Idiomaticity in Intercultural Interactions
- 9 Metaphors in Intercultural Communication
- 10 Common Ground in Linguistic Theory and Internet Pragmatics: Forms of Dynamic Multicultural Interaction
- 11 Vague Language from a Pragmatic Perspective
- 12 Humor in Intercultural Interactions
- 13 Emotion in Intercultural Interactions
- 14 Research Methods in Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
11 - Vague Language from a Pragmatic Perspective
from Part II - Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgment
- Contributors
- Introduction The Rise of Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part I Theoretical Foundation
- Part II Key Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics Research
- 5 The Cultural, Contextual, and Computational Dimensions of Common Ground
- 6 Role of Context
- 7 (Mis/Non)Understanding in Intercultural Interactions
- 8 Creativity and Idiomaticity in Intercultural Interactions
- 9 Metaphors in Intercultural Communication
- 10 Common Ground in Linguistic Theory and Internet Pragmatics: Forms of Dynamic Multicultural Interaction
- 11 Vague Language from a Pragmatic Perspective
- 12 Humor in Intercultural Interactions
- 13 Emotion in Intercultural Interactions
- 14 Research Methods in Intercultural Pragmatics
- Part III Interface of Intercultural Pragmatics and Related Disciplines
- Part IV Intercultural Pragmatics in Different Types of Communication
- Part V Language Learning
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter presents a comprehensive review of vague language studies from a pragmatic perspective. An utterance is vague when it conveys unspecific meaning. For example, “Many friends attended her birthday party,” how many is many? 20, 100 or 200? Our interpretation of “many” may vary from individual to individual, from context to context. Vague language is fluid, stretchable, and strategic. It consists of various types, including approximators, vague quantifiers, placeholder words, vague category identifiers, general terms, intensifiers, softeners, and epistemic stance markers. This chapter serves as a guide for understanding the characteristics of vague language. The discussion involves the conceptual frameworks and features of vague language, which are illustrated by examples and research drawn from intercultural corpora. This chapter reviews the theorization of vague language, its linguistic categories and pragmatic functions, vague language use in intercultural communication, and includes suggestions for future research. Vague language plays a crucial role in intercultural communication and its pragmatic functions, such as mitigation, politeness, and self-protection, form an important part of the strategic moves used in effective language interactions. This chapter provides an important contribution to the field of intercultural pragmatics.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics , pp. 274 - 300Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Aijmer, K. (1985). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by “and” and “or”. In Togeby, O., ed., Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Institute for Nordisk Filologi, Københavns Universitet, pp. 366–389.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding Pragmatic Markers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (2010). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bradac, J. J., Mulac, A., and Thompson, S. A. (1995). Men’s and women’s use of intensifiers and hedges in problem-solving interaction: Molar and molecular analyses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(2), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2003). The grammar of talk: Spoken English, grammar and the classroom. In New Perspectives on English in the Classroom. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chefneux, G. (2012). Mitigation at work: Functions and lexical realisations. In Măda, S. and Săftoiu, R., eds., Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–192.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). The use of vague language across spoken genres in an intercultural Hong Kong corpus. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. and O’Keeffe, A. (2015). Vagueness. In Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–378.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (1999). Facilitating a description of intercultural conversations: The Hong Kong Corpus of Conversational English. ICAME Journal, 23, 5–20.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2001). The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. (2008). A Corpus-Driven Study of Discourse Intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 107–143.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2007). “I think he was kind of shouting or something”: Uses and abuses of vagueness in the British courtroom. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1979). Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2000). Vague language and international students. In Cutting, J., ed., The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching. Sunderland: University of Sunderland Press, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2007). Introduction to “vague language explored.” In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Drave, N. (2002). Vaguely speaking: A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Peters, P., Collins, P., and Smith, A., eds., Language and Computers: New Frontiers of Corpus Research 16 (Papers from the Twenty-First International Conference of English Language Research and Computerized Corpora). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. (2007). “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. (2010), Apologizing to China: Elastic apologies and the meta-discourse of American diplomats. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 47–74.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
He, S. (2021). Cognitive metaphor theories in translation studies: Toward a dual-model parametric approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1): 25–52.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985). Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B., ed., Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine, pp. 24–43.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication, 10(3), 185–205.Google Scholar
Hu, G. and Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2795–2809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic meta-discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Janney, R. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language and Communication, 22, 457–475.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2004). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 675–700.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stance taking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2007). “About twelve thousand or so”: Vagueness in North American and UK offices. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–61.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1997). The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Metsä-Ketelä, M. (2006). “Words are more or less superfluous”: The case of more or less in academic lingua franca English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 117–143.Google Scholar
Moxey, L. and Sanford, A. (1993). Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mulder, J., Williams, C. P., and Moore, E. (2019). Sort of in Australian English: The elasticity of a pragmatic marker. [Special issue]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 9–32.Google Scholar
Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortaçtepe, D. and Okkalı, S. (2021). Common ground and positioning in teacher-student interactions: Second language socialization in EFL classrooms. Intercultural Pragmatics, 18(1), 53–82.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017a). Panegyrists, vagueness and the pragmeme. In Parvaresh, V. and Capone, A., eds., The Pragmeme of Accommodation: The Case of Interaction around the Event of Death. Cham: Springer, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2017b). Book review: Grace Q Zhang, Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Discourse Studies, 19 (1), 115–117.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2018). “We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language in the 2016 US presidential debates. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Tayebi, T. (2014). Vaguely speaking in Persian. Discourse Processes, 51(7), 565–600.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Zhang, G. (2019). Vagueness and elasticity of “sort of” in TV discussion discourse in the Asian Pacific (Special issue). Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 1–132.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011). Language is a Window into Social Relations. Folkestone: Cognitive Media. Retrieved from www.wearecognitive.com.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., and Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician–physician discourse. In Di Pietro, R. J., ed., Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. (1973). A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Rowland, T. (2007). “Well maybe not exactly, but it’s around fifty basically?”: Vague language in mathematics classrooms. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
Ruzaitė, J. (2007). Vague Language in Educational Settings: Quantifiers and Approximators in British and American English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sabet, P. and Zhang, G. (2015). Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shirato, J. and Stapleton, P. (2007). Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 393–412.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C. (2004). Formulaic expressions in academic speech. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. A., eds., Discourse in the Professions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In Spencer-Oatey, H., ed., Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 11–46.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series, 86, 153–171.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1986). A matter of prolonged field work: Notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1–25.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.Google Scholar
Terraschke, A. and Holmes, J. (2007). “Und tralala”: Vagueness and general extenders in German and New Zealand English. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 198–220.Google Scholar
Trappes-Lomax, H. (2007). Vague language as a means of self-protective avoidance: Tension management in conference talks. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–137.Google Scholar
Tseng, M. Y. and Zhang, G. (2019). Perceptions of and attitudes toward elastic language in online health communication in Chinese. Lingua, 233, 1–24.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. (1993). Investigating Language: Central Problems in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warren, M. (2007). {/ [Oh] Not a < ^ lot >}: Discourse intonation and vague language. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 182–197.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, J. W. and Hosman, L. A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom: The effects of male and female use of hedges and intensifiers on impression formation. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 48, 137–152.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2013). The impact of touchy topics on vague language use. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 23, 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. (2015). Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2020). Vague language challenged: Australian customs encounters. International Review of Pragmatics, 12(1), 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Additional Resources
Theoretical frameworks relevant to VL:
Seminal work on VL:
VL works from the perspective of pragmatics:
VL works in intercultural pragmatics:
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. (2015). Elastic Language: How and Why We Stretch Our Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. (2018). “We are going to do a lot of things for college tuition”: Vague language in the 2016 US presidential debates. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(2), 167–192.Google Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Zhang, G. (2019). Vagueness and elasticity of “sort of” in TV discussion discourse in the Asian Pacific (Special issue). Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 29(1), 1–132.Google Scholar
Ruzaitė, J. (2007). Vague Language in Educational Settings: Quantifiers and Approximators in British and American English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sabet, P. and Zhang, G. (2015). Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2007). The use of vague language across spoken genres in an intercultural Hong Kong corpus. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–181.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2001). The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 22(1), 81–104.Google Scholar
Terraschke, A. and Holmes, J. (2007). “Und tralala”: Vagueness and general extenders in German and New Zealand English. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 198–220.Google Scholar