Vague Language That Is Rarely VagueP: A Case Study of “Thing” in L1 and L2 Discourse

in International Review of Pragmatics
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper investigates the use of “vague language” (Channell, 1994) in English L1 and L2 speaker discourse. In particular, the item “thing”, which is used about 2.5 times more often by the L1 than the L2 speakers, is analysed in job interviews in Australia. Since “thing” has been termed “vague language” this paper will first provide a theoretical discussion of the notion of vagueness with a special focus on “thing”. The discussion of vagueness is mainly based on the “underdeterminacy thesis” (Carston, 1988, 2002; Atlas, 2005) and is, thus, closely linked to explicature construction and the notion of saturation. The theoretical discussion will lead to a definition of vagueness as a pragmatic hearer based phenomenon (vaguenessP) which will be applied to an analysis of “thing” in the L1 and L2 employment interview data collected. The analysis will show that “thing” is used differently by the two populations with regards to the notion of vaguenessP but also with respect to the saturation requirement of this item. While the analysis shows that “thing” is not inherently vagueP, some instances of “thing” in the L2 data do seem to introduce the phenomenon of vaguenessP. Furthermore, the preference of L1 and L2 speakers for different saturation processes has an influence on the effect achieved by “thing”.

Vague Language That Is Rarely VagueP: A Case Study of “Thing” in L1 and L2 Discourse

in International Review of Pragmatics

Sections

References

AbbottBarbara. 2006. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In HornL. and WardG. (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics122-149. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

AdolphsSvenjaAtkinsSarah and HarveyKevin. 2007. Caught between professional requirements and interpersonal needs: vague language in healthcare contexts. In CuttingJ. (ed.) Vague Language Explored64-80. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

AtlasJay. 2005. Logic Meaning and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy Implicature and Their Interface. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

CarstonRobyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In KempsonR. (ed.) Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality155-181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CarstonRobyn. 1995. Quantity maxims and generalised implicature. Lingua 96: 213-244.

CarstonRobyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

CarstonRobyn. 2009. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 35-62.

ChannellJoan. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ChenPing. 2009. Aspects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1657-1674.

ChengWinnie and WarrenMartin. 2001. The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong. English World-Wide 22: 81-104.

CrystalDavid and DavyDerek. 1975. Advanced Conversational English. London: Longman.

CuttingJoan. 1999. The grammar of the in-group code. Applied Linguistics 20: 179-202.

CuttingJoan. 2000. Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

CuttingJoan. 2001. The speech acts of the in-group. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1207-1233.

CuttingJoan. 2002. The in-group code lexis. Hermes Journal of Linguistics 28: 59-80.

CuttingJoan (ed.). 2007. Vague Language Explored. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

DinesElizabeth R. 1980. Variation in discourse: ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: 13-31.

DraveNeil. 2001. Vaguely speaking: a corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. Language and Computers 36: 25-40.

DraveNeil. 2002. Vague Language in Intercultural Conversation. Unpublished PhD DissertationCity University of Hong Kong.

FronekJosef. 1982. Thing as a function word. Linguistics 20: 633-654.

GoddardCliff and WierzbickaAnna. 2002. Semantic primes and Universal Grammar. In GoddardC. and WierzbickaA. (eds.) Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings84-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

GolatoAndrea. 2003. Studying compliment responses: a comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24: 90-121.

HallidayMichael A.K. and HasanRuqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

HallidayMichael A.K. and HasanRuqaiya. 1985. Language Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic perspective. Burwood: Deakin University Press.

HasanRuqaiya. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In FloodJ. (ed.) Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition Language and the Structure of Prose 15-27. International Reading Association.

HasanRuqaiya. 1996. Ways of saying: ways of meaning. In ButtD.WilliamsG. and CloranC. (eds.) Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning: Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan191-243. London: Cassell.

HuebnerThom. 1983. Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 33-53.

IoninTaniaKoHeejeong and WexlerKenneth. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition: the role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12: 3-69.

IoninTaniaZubizarretaMaria Luisa and MaldonadoSalvador Bautista. 2008. Sources of linguistic knowledge in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua 118: 554-576.

JuckerAndreas H.SmithSara W. and LüdgeTanja. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1737-1769.

KoesterAlmut. 2006. Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge.

KoesterAlmut. 2007. ‘About twelve thousand or so’: vagueness in North American and UK offices. In CuttingJ. (ed.) Vague Language Explored40-62. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

LabovWilliam. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

LevinsonStephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures. Cambridge: MA: The MIT Press.

MarraMeredithVineBernadette and HolmesJanet. 2008. Heroes, fathers and good mates: leadership styles of men at work. Proceedings of ANZCA08: Power and Place.

OverstreetMaryann. 1999. Whales Candlelight and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OverstreetMaryann. 2005. ‘And stuff und so’: investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1845-1864.

QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSidneyLeechGoeffrey and SvartvikJan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

RobertsCraige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 287-350.

RobertsonDaniel. 2000. Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research 16: 135-172.

SpeerSusan A. 2002. ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: a sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies 4: 511-525.

SperberDan and WilsonDeirdre. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

SussexRoland. 2004. Abstand, Ausbau, creativity and ludicity in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 24: 3-19.

TerraschkeAgnes. 2007. Use of general extenders by German non-native speakers of English. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45: 141-160.

ThomasMargaret. 1989. The acquisition of English articles by first- and second-language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 10: 335-355.

WierzbickaAnna. 1994. ‘Cultural scripts’: a semantic approach to cultural analysis and cross-cultural communication. Pragmatics and Language Learning 5: 1-24.

WierzbickaAnna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

YuanYi. 2001. An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 271-292.

3

 See also Levinson (2000) and his concept of the “bottleneck of communication” in relation to his discussion of implicatures which reminds of Carston’s Underdeterminacy thesis.

5

 See Jucker et al. (2003) for a contrary view as they suggest that uses of vague language are loose uses of language while I suggest that uses of vague language are semantically highly loose and can only be tightened in context but do not show instances of loose talk.

8

Chen (2009) refers to Fodor and Sag (1982) Partee (1970) and Lyons (1977) when making this claim.

Figures

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 41 41 9
Full Text Views 42 42 24
PDF Downloads 5 5 3
EPUB Downloads 1 1 0