Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation
Identifieur interne : 000499 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 000498; suivant : 000500Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation
Auteurs : Andreas H. Jucker ; Sara W. Smith ; Tanja LüdgeSource :
- Journal of pragmatics [ 0378-2166 ] ; 2003.
Descripteurs français
- Pascal (Inist)
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Vagueness in reference is often seen as a deplorable deviation from precision and clarity. Using a relevance theoretical framework of analysis, we demonstrate instead that vague expressions may be more effective than precise ones in conveying the intended meaning of an utterance. That is, they may carry more relevant contextual implications than would a precise expression. In introducing entities into a conversation, we found that vague referring expressions often served as a focusing device, helping the addressee determine how much processing effort should be devoted to a given referent. In characterising events and experiences, they may indicate a closer or looser assignment of a characteristic to a conceptual category. For expressing quantities, they may convey the speaker's attitude about the quantity itself, and they may convey assumptions about the speaker's and/or the hearer's beliefs. They may be used to directly express the degree of commitment a speaker makes to a proposition, or they may convey other propositional attitudes such as newsworthiness and personal evaluation more indirectly. Finally, they may serve social functions such as engendering camaraderie and softening implicit criticisms. They may thus be seen as managing conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of semi-controlled spoken interactions between California students, who were asked to converse on specific topics, such as movies, sports or opera. Following the categories proposed by Channell (Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford), we analysed examples of vague additives, i.e., approximators, downtoners, vague category identifiers and shields, and examples of lexical vagueness, i.e., vague quantifying expressions, vague adverbs of frequency, vague adverbs of likelihood, and placeholder words. Such expressions are used regularly in everyday conversations and they rarely lead to detectable misunderstandings; we argue that their success d
Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)
Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.
pA |
|
---|
Format Inist (serveur)
NO : | FRANCIS 524-04-10671 INIST |
---|---|
FT : | (Les aspects interactifs du flou dans la conversation) |
ET : | Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation |
AU : | JUCKER (Andreas H.); SMITH (Sara W.); LÜDGE (Tanja) |
AF : | Department of English, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47/8032 Zurich/Suisse (1 aut.); California Stale University/Long Beach, CA/Etats-Unis (2 aut.); Justus Liebig University/Giessen/Allemagne (3 aut.) |
DT : | Publication en série; Niveau analytique |
SO : | Journal of pragmatics; ISSN 0378-2166; Pays-Bas; Da. 2003; Vol. 35; No. 12; Pp. 1737-1769; Bibl. 1 p.1/4 |
LA : | Anglais |
EA : | Vagueness in reference is often seen as a deplorable deviation from precision and clarity. Using a relevance theoretical framework of analysis, we demonstrate instead that vague expressions may be more effective than precise ones in conveying the intended meaning of an utterance. That is, they may carry more relevant contextual implications than would a precise expression. In introducing entities into a conversation, we found that vague referring expressions often served as a focusing device, helping the addressee determine how much processing effort should be devoted to a given referent. In characterising events and experiences, they may indicate a closer or looser assignment of a characteristic to a conceptual category. For expressing quantities, they may convey the speaker's attitude about the quantity itself, and they may convey assumptions about the speaker's and/or the hearer's beliefs. They may be used to directly express the degree of commitment a speaker makes to a proposition, or they may convey other propositional attitudes such as newsworthiness and personal evaluation more indirectly. Finally, they may serve social functions such as engendering camaraderie and softening implicit criticisms. They may thus be seen as managing conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of semi-controlled spoken interactions between California students, who were asked to converse on specific topics, such as movies, sports or opera. Following the categories proposed by Channell (Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford), we analysed examples of vague additives, i.e., approximators, downtoners, vague category identifiers and shields, and examples of lexical vagueness, i.e., vague quantifying expressions, vague adverbs of frequency, vague adverbs of likelihood, and placeholder words. Such expressions are used regularly in everyday conversations and they rarely lead to detectable misunderstandings; we argue that their success d |
CC : | 52456; 524 |
FD : | Pragmatique; Théorie de la pertinence; Connaissance commune; Attitude du locuteur; Attitude propositionnelle; Référence; Interaction verbale; Conversation; Fonction pragmatique; Focus; Etude expérimentale; Flou |
ED : | Pragmatics; Relevance theory; Common knowledge; Speaker attitude; Propositional attitude; Reference; Verbal interaction; Conversation; Pragmatic function; Focus; Experimental study |
LO : | INIST-16593.354000119773950010 |
ID : | 524 |
Links to Exploration step
Francis:524-04-10671Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation</title>
<author><name sortKey="Jucker, Andreas H" sort="Jucker, Andreas H" uniqKey="Jucker A" first="Andreas H." last="Jucker">Andreas H. Jucker</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of English, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47</s1>
<s2>8032 Zurich</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Smith, Sara W" sort="Smith, Sara W" uniqKey="Smith S" first="Sara W." last="Smith">Sara W. Smith</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>California Stale University</s1>
<s2>Long Beach, CA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ludge, Tanja" sort="Ludge, Tanja" uniqKey="Ludge T" first="Tanja" last="Lüdge">Tanja Lüdge</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Justus Liebig University</s1>
<s2>Giessen</s2>
<s3>DEU</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">524-04-10671</idno>
<date when="2003">2003</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">FRANCIS 524-04-10671 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Francis:524-04-10671</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">000499</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation</title>
<author><name sortKey="Jucker, Andreas H" sort="Jucker, Andreas H" uniqKey="Jucker A" first="Andreas H." last="Jucker">Andreas H. Jucker</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of English, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47</s1>
<s2>8032 Zurich</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Smith, Sara W" sort="Smith, Sara W" uniqKey="Smith S" first="Sara W." last="Smith">Sara W. Smith</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="02"><s1>California Stale University</s1>
<s2>Long Beach, CA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Ludge, Tanja" sort="Ludge, Tanja" uniqKey="Ludge T" first="Tanja" last="Lüdge">Tanja Lüdge</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="03"><s1>Justus Liebig University</s1>
<s2>Giessen</s2>
<s3>DEU</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Journal of pragmatics</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. pragmat.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0378-2166</idno>
<imprint><date when="2003">2003</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Journal of pragmatics</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">J. pragmat.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0378-2166</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Common knowledge</term>
<term>Conversation</term>
<term>Experimental study</term>
<term>Focus</term>
<term>Pragmatic function</term>
<term>Pragmatics</term>
<term>Propositional attitude</term>
<term>Reference</term>
<term>Relevance theory</term>
<term>Speaker attitude</term>
<term>Verbal interaction</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Pragmatique</term>
<term>Théorie de la pertinence</term>
<term>Connaissance commune</term>
<term>Attitude du locuteur</term>
<term>Attitude propositionnelle</term>
<term>Référence</term>
<term>Interaction verbale</term>
<term>Conversation</term>
<term>Fonction pragmatique</term>
<term>Focus</term>
<term>Etude expérimentale</term>
<term>Flou</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Vagueness in reference is often seen as a deplorable deviation from precision and clarity. Using a relevance theoretical framework of analysis, we demonstrate instead that vague expressions may be more effective than precise ones in conveying the intended meaning of an utterance. That is, they may carry more relevant contextual implications than would a precise expression. In introducing entities into a conversation, we found that vague referring expressions often served as a focusing device, helping the addressee determine how much processing effort should be devoted to a given referent. In characterising events and experiences, they may indicate a closer or looser assignment of a characteristic to a conceptual category. For expressing quantities, they may convey the speaker's attitude about the quantity itself, and they may convey assumptions about the speaker's and/or the hearer's beliefs. They may be used to directly express the degree of commitment a speaker makes to a proposition, or they may convey other propositional attitudes such as newsworthiness and personal evaluation more indirectly. Finally, they may serve social functions such as engendering camaraderie and softening implicit criticisms. They may thus be seen as managing conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of semi-controlled spoken interactions between California students, who were asked to converse on specific topics, such as movies, sports or opera. Following the categories proposed by Channell (Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford), we analysed examples of vague additives, i.e., approximators, downtoners, vague category identifiers and shields, and examples of lexical vagueness, i.e., vague quantifying expressions, vague adverbs of frequency, vague adverbs of likelihood, and placeholder words. Such expressions are used regularly in everyday conversations and they rarely lead to detectable misunderstandings; we argue that their success d</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0378-2166</s0>
</fA01>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>J. pragmat.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>35</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>12</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>JUCKER (Andreas H.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>SMITH (Sara W.)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="03" i2="1"><s1>LÜDGE (Tanja)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>Department of English, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47</s1>
<s2>8032 Zurich</s2>
<s3>CHE</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="02"><s1>California Stale University</s1>
<s2>Long Beach, CA</s2>
<s3>USA</s3>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA14 i1="03"><s1>Justus Liebig University</s1>
<s2>Giessen</s2>
<s3>DEU</s3>
<sZ>3 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>1737-1769</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2003</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>16593</s2>
<s5>354000119773950010</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2004 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>1 p.1/4</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>524-04-10671</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Journal of pragmatics</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>NLD</s0>
</fA66>
<fA68 i1="01" i2="1" l="FRE"><s1>Les aspects interactifs du flou dans la conversation</s1>
</fA68>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Vagueness in reference is often seen as a deplorable deviation from precision and clarity. Using a relevance theoretical framework of analysis, we demonstrate instead that vague expressions may be more effective than precise ones in conveying the intended meaning of an utterance. That is, they may carry more relevant contextual implications than would a precise expression. In introducing entities into a conversation, we found that vague referring expressions often served as a focusing device, helping the addressee determine how much processing effort should be devoted to a given referent. In characterising events and experiences, they may indicate a closer or looser assignment of a characteristic to a conceptual category. For expressing quantities, they may convey the speaker's attitude about the quantity itself, and they may convey assumptions about the speaker's and/or the hearer's beliefs. They may be used to directly express the degree of commitment a speaker makes to a proposition, or they may convey other propositional attitudes such as newsworthiness and personal evaluation more indirectly. Finally, they may serve social functions such as engendering camaraderie and softening implicit criticisms. They may thus be seen as managing conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of semi-controlled spoken interactions between California students, who were asked to converse on specific topics, such as movies, sports or opera. Following the categories proposed by Channell (Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford), we analysed examples of vague additives, i.e., approximators, downtoners, vague category identifiers and shields, and examples of lexical vagueness, i.e., vague quantifying expressions, vague adverbs of frequency, vague adverbs of likelihood, and placeholder words. Such expressions are used regularly in everyday conversations and they rarely lead to detectable misunderstandings; we argue that their success d</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="L"><s0>52456</s0>
<s1>XI</s1>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="02" i2="L"><s0>524</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Pragmatique</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Pragmatics</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>01</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Théorie de la pertinence</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Relevance theory</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>02</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Connaissance commune</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Common knowledge</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>03</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Attitude du locuteur</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Speaker attitude</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>04</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Attitude propositionnelle</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Propositional attitude</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>05</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Référence</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Reference</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>06</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Interaction verbale</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Verbal interaction</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>07</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Conversation</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="08" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Conversation</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>08</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Fonction pragmatique</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="09" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Pragmatic function</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Focus</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="10" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Focus</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Etude expérimentale</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="11" i2="L" l="ENG"><s0>Experimental study</s0>
<s2>NI</s2>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="12" i2="L" l="FRE"><s0>Flou</s0>
<s4>INC</s4>
<s5>31</s5>
</fC03>
<fN21><s1>054</s1>
</fN21>
<fN82><s1>PSI</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>FRANCIS 524-04-10671 INIST</NO>
<FT>(Les aspects interactifs du flou dans la conversation)</FT>
<ET>Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation</ET>
<AU>JUCKER (Andreas H.); SMITH (Sara W.); LÜDGE (Tanja)</AU>
<AF>Department of English, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 47/8032 Zurich/Suisse (1 aut.); California Stale University/Long Beach, CA/Etats-Unis (2 aut.); Justus Liebig University/Giessen/Allemagne (3 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Journal of pragmatics; ISSN 0378-2166; Pays-Bas; Da. 2003; Vol. 35; No. 12; Pp. 1737-1769; Bibl. 1 p.1/4</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Vagueness in reference is often seen as a deplorable deviation from precision and clarity. Using a relevance theoretical framework of analysis, we demonstrate instead that vague expressions may be more effective than precise ones in conveying the intended meaning of an utterance. That is, they may carry more relevant contextual implications than would a precise expression. In introducing entities into a conversation, we found that vague referring expressions often served as a focusing device, helping the addressee determine how much processing effort should be devoted to a given referent. In characterising events and experiences, they may indicate a closer or looser assignment of a characteristic to a conceptual category. For expressing quantities, they may convey the speaker's attitude about the quantity itself, and they may convey assumptions about the speaker's and/or the hearer's beliefs. They may be used to directly express the degree of commitment a speaker makes to a proposition, or they may convey other propositional attitudes such as newsworthiness and personal evaluation more indirectly. Finally, they may serve social functions such as engendering camaraderie and softening implicit criticisms. They may thus be seen as managing conversational implicature. Our analysis is based on a corpus of semi-controlled spoken interactions between California students, who were asked to converse on specific topics, such as movies, sports or opera. Following the categories proposed by Channell (Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford), we analysed examples of vague additives, i.e., approximators, downtoners, vague category identifiers and shields, and examples of lexical vagueness, i.e., vague quantifying expressions, vague adverbs of frequency, vague adverbs of likelihood, and placeholder words. Such expressions are used regularly in everyday conversations and they rarely lead to detectable misunderstandings; we argue that their success d</EA>
<CC>52456; 524</CC>
<FD>Pragmatique; Théorie de la pertinence; Connaissance commune; Attitude du locuteur; Attitude propositionnelle; Référence; Interaction verbale; Conversation; Fonction pragmatique; Focus; Etude expérimentale; Flou</FD>
<ED>Pragmatics; Relevance theory; Common knowledge; Speaker attitude; Propositional attitude; Reference; Verbal interaction; Conversation; Pragmatic function; Focus; Experimental study</ED>
<LO>INIST-16593.354000119773950010</LO>
<ID>524</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/OperaV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000499 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000499 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Wicri/Musique |area= OperaV1 |flux= PascalFrancis |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= Francis:524-04-10671 |texte= Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation }}
This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.21. |