Book contents
- Elastic Language
- Elastic Language
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Book part
- Conventional notations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theoretical foundations
- 3 Elasticity theory
- 4 Methodology
- 5 Linguistic realisation of elastic language
- 6 Strategies of elastic language
- 7 Elastic language, power and gender
- 8 Elastic language and speech factors
- 9 General discussion
- 10 Conclusions and implications
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Book contents
- Elastic Language
- Elastic Language
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Book part
- Conventional notations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theoretical foundations
- 3 Elasticity theory
- 4 Methodology
- 5 Linguistic realisation of elastic language
- 6 Strategies of elastic language
- 7 Elastic language, power and gender
- 8 Elastic language and speech factors
- 9 General discussion
- 10 Conclusions and implications
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Elastic LanguageHow and Why we Stretch our Words, pp. 227 - 240Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Adolphs, S. (2006), Advances in corpus linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 38(2): 292–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S., Atkins, S. and Harvey, K. (2007), Caught between professional requirements and interpersonal needs: vague language in healthcare contexts. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored, pp. 62–78. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S., Brown, B., Carter, R., Crawford, C. and Sahota, O. (2004), Applying corpus linguistics in a health care context. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1): 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1984), ‘Sort of’ and ‘kind of’ in English conversation. Studia Linguistica 38: 118–28.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1985), What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by and and or. In O. Togeby (ed.), Papers from the Eighth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, pp. 366–89. Institut for Nordisk Filologi, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (1997), I think: an English modal particle. In Swan, T. and Westvik, O. J. (eds), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, pp. 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002), English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013), Understanding Pragmatic Markers: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. (2010), A contrastive approach to vague nouns. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S. (eds), New Approaches to Hedging, pp. 35–48. Bingley (UK): Emerald.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds (1984), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. (1973), Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language 10: 1–39.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N. and Mullett, J. (1990), Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park (CA): Sage.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999), Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (2010), Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, 8th edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1992), Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1990), ‘You don't touch lettuce with your fingers’: parental politeness in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992), The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Watts, R. J., Ide, S. and Ehlich, K. (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, pp. 255–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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. and Street, R. L. Jr (1989/90), Powerful and powerless styles of talk: a theoretical analysis of language and impression formation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 23: 195–241.CrossRefGoogle 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
Briggs, C. L. (1997), Introduction: from the ideal, the ordinary, and the orderly to conflict and violence in pragmatic research. Pragmatics 7(4): 451–59.Google Scholar
Brockway, D. (1981), Semantic constraints on relevance. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. and Verschueren, J. (eds), Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics, pp. 57–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. (1980), How and why are women more polite: some evidence from a Mayan community. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R. and Furman, N. (eds), Women and Language in Literature and Society, pp. 111–36. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978), Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987), Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005), Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, H. (2012), The puzzle(s) of absolute adjectives on vagueness, comparison, and the origin of scale structure. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Semantics 16: 1–50.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2004), Mechanisms of chance in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, pp. 602–23. Malden (MA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (1980), The language of sisterhood. In Michaels, L. and Ricks, C. (eds), The State of the Language, pp. 226–34. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (1998), Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture. ELT Journal 52(1): 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2003), The grammar of talk: spoken English, grammar and the classroom. New Perspectives on English in the Classroom, pp. 5–13. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
Carter, E. (2013), Analysing Police Interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1997), Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2004), This, that and the other: multi-word clusters in spoken English as visible patterns of interaction. TEANGA 21: 30–52.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006), Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Channell, J. (1990), Precise and vague quantities in writing on economics. In Nash, W. (ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in the Language and Conventions of Academic Discourse, pp. 95–117. Beverly Hills: Sage.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, pp. 169–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chen, W. Z. and Wu, S. X. (2002), Fanchou yu Mohu Yuyi Yanjiu (in Chinese) [A Study on Category and Semantic Fuzziness]. Fujian (China): Fujian Renmin Press.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, pp. 161–81. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and O'Keeffe, A. (2014), Vagueness. In Rühlemann, C. and Aijmer, K. (eds), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, pp. 360–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. and Tsui, A. B. M. (2009), ‘Ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think’: how do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other? Journal of Pragmatics 41(11): 2365–80.CrossRefGoogle 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. and Warren, M. (2003), Indirectness, inexplicitness and vagueness made clearer. Pragmatics 13(3): 381–400.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004), Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, pp. 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986), Referring as a collaborative process. In Clark, H. H. (ed.), Arenas of Language Use, pp. 107–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, L. and Kay, P. (1981), Prototype semantics: the English word lie. Language 57(1): 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (2000), Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, pp. 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (2007), ‘This we have done’: the vagueness of poetry and public relations. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored, pp. 21–39. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle 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, pp. 97–114. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2008), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 3rd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. Plano (2007), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. (2006), A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. (2008), A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th edition. Malden (MA): Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1975), Advanced Conversational English, 5th edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1979), Advanced Conversational English, 8th edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (1998), The function of inexplicit language in ‘CANCODE’ casual conversations. Conference paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 12, University of London.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2000), Vague language and international students. In Cutting, J. (ed.), The Grammar of Spoken English and EAP Teaching, pp. 39–54. Sunderland: University of Sunderland Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2001), Speech acts of the in-group. Journal of Pragmatics 33(8): 1207–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J., ed. (2007), Vague Language Explored. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daitz, E. (1956), The picture theory of meaning. In Flew, A. (ed.), Essays in Conceptual Analysis, pp. 53–74. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Deese, J. (1974), Towards a psychological theory of the meaning of sentences. In Silverstein, A. (ed.), Human Communication: Theoretical Explorations, pp. 67–80. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dines, E. R. (1980), Variation in discourse: ‘and stuff like that’. Language in Society 9: 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, I. (2010), Mind your language! Advocate: Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union (Australia) 17(4): 28.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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), pp. 25–40. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992), Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds), Talk at Work, pp. 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992), Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds), Talk at Work, pp. 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, B. L. (1987), ‘Something on the order of around forty to forty-four’: imprecise numerical expressions in biomedical slide talks. Language in Society 16(4): 527–41.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007), The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R. (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 139–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. J. and Larrivée, P. (2012), Exploring the relation between the qualitative and quantitative uses of the determiner some. English Language and Linguistics 16(1):131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ediger, A. (1995a), An analysis of set-marking tags in the English language. PhD thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (1998), Flirting with meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17(1): 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007), Stancetaking in discourse: an introduction. In Englebretson, R. (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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, pp. 138–57. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982), Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1977), Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (1985), Power. In van Dijk, T. (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis vol. 4: Discourse Analysis in Society, pp. 61–82. Orlando (FL): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1980), Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4(4): 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (2010), Pragmatic competence: the case of hedging. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S. (eds), New Approaches to Hedging, pp. 15–34. Bingley (UK): Emerald.Google Scholar
Gassner, D. (2012), Vague language that is rarely vagueP: a case study of ‘thing’ in L1 and L2 discourse. International Review of Pragmatics 4(1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979), Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1989), Introduction: prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27(4): 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2006a), Introduction: a rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In Geeraerts, D. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, pp. 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., ed. (2006b), Words and Other Wonders: Papers on Lexical and Semantic Topics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. (2010), Apologizing to China: elastic apologies and the meta-discourse of American diplomats. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(1): 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. H. (1975), Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds), Syntax and Semantics vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Y. G. (1990), Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilbaud, G. (1977), Mathematics and approximation. In Asher, H. and Kunle, H. (eds), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Mathematics Education, pp. 125–34. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982), Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1985), Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Burwood: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. and Mineo, P. J. (1998), A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 17: 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handford, M. (2010), The Language of Business Meetings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. and Brown, C. (1995), Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2003), Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1049 –1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdcroft, D. (1979), Speech acts and conversation I. Philosophical Quarterly 29: 125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1982), Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal 13(2): 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (1985), Sex differences and miscommunication: some data from New Zealand. In Pride, J. B. (ed.), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication, pp. 24–43. Melbourne: River Seine.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1990), Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language and Communication 10(3): 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (2000), Women at work: analysing women's talk in New Zealand workplaces. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22(2): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972), On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. PhD thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (2012), The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hübler, A. (1983), Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998), Conversation Analysis: Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998a) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–82.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998b), Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998c), Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2000), Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness 9(4): 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ide, S. (1989), Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3): 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2012), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janicki, K. (2002), A hindrance to communication: the use of difficult and incomprehensible language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(2): 194–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janney, R. W. (2002), Cotext as context: vague answers in court. Language and Communication 22: 457–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1990), List construction as a task and resource. In Psathas, G. (ed.), Interaction Competence, pp. 63–92. Lanham (MD): University Press of America.Google Scholar
Jick, T. D. (1979), Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1993), The discourse marker well: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W. and Lüdge, T. (2003), Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12): 1737–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2013), Development of comment clauses. In Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G. and Wallis, S. (eds), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Change with Corpora, pp. 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S., eds (2010), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley (UK): Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, G. (1999), Data collection in pragmatics research. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL 18 (1): 71–107.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1984), The kind of/sort of construction. In Brugman, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 157–71. Berkeley (CA): BLS, University of California.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2004), Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 675–700. Malden (MA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003), Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007), The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, R. (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, pp. 183–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2010), Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S. (eds), New Approaches to Hedging, pp. 203–36. Bingley (UK): Emerald.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2012), I thought it was very interesting: conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15): 2194–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004), Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, S. F. (2009), Style as stance: stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In Jaffe, A. (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 171–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. (1991), Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request. Anthropological Linguistics 33(2): 183–203.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2007), ‘About twelve thousand or so’: vagueness in North American and UK offices. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague Language Explored, pp. 40–61. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, K. (2013), Epilogue: what makes Chinese unique in discourse and interaction? In Pan, Y. L. and Kádár, D. Z. (eds), Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice, pp. 310–20. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972), Sociolinguistic Patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. (2000), The Language War. Berkeley(CA): University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986), An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10(1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, P. and Duffley, P. (2014), The emergence of implicit meaning: scalar implicatures with some. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(4): 530–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000), Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979), Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. and Bredmar, M. (1996), Reconstructing topical sensitivity: aspects of face-work in talks between midwives and expectant mothers. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(4): 347–79.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1991), Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and Bonnie Lasses in Ayr. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martinich, A. P. (1980), Conversational maxims and some philosophical problems. The Philosophical Quarterly 30: 215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinovski, B. (2006), Framework for analysis of mitigation in courts. Journal of Pragmatics 38(12): 2065–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1997), The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2004), ‘They're a little bit different …’: observations on hedges in academic talk. In Aijmer, K. and Stenström, A. B. (eds), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, pp. 173–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maynard, S. K. (1993), Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. (1998), Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. and Carter, R. A. (1997), Grammar, tails and affect: constructing expressive choices in discourse. Text 17(3): 231–52.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. and Handford, M. (2004), ‘Invisible to us’: a preliminary corpus-based study of spoken business English. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds), Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. J., O'Keeffe, A. and Walsh, S. (2005), ‘Post-colonialism, multi-culturalism, structuralism, feminism, post-modernism and so on and so forth’: vague language in academic discourse, a comparative analysis of form, function and context. Conference paper presented at AAACL/ICAME Conference, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1981), Everything that Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know about Logic, but Were Ashamed to Ask. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2007), Are women really more talkative than men? Science 317(5834): 82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 117–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, W. C. (1938), Foundations of the Theory of Signs, special issue of International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science 1(2). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M. (1991), Approaches to qualitative–quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40: 120–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moxey, L. and Sanford, A. (1993), Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective. Hove (UK): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moxey, L. and Sanford, A. (1997), Choosing the right quantifier: usage in the context of communication. In Givón, T. (ed.), Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, pp. 207–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. (2010), Corpus and Sociolinguistics: Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G. (1989), The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2008), Gender differences in language use: an analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes 45: 211–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. (1996), Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 407–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S. (2002), Ideology and social meanings: rethinking the relationship between language, politeness, and gender. In Benor, S., Rose, M., Sharma, D., Sweetland, J. and Zhang, Q. (eds), Gendered Practices in Language, pp. 91–113. Stanford (CA): Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, A. (2002), Exploring indices of national identity in a corpus of radio phone-in data from Irish radio. In Sanchez-Macarro, A. (ed.), Windows on the World: Media Discourse in English. Valencia (Spain): University of Valencia Press.Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, A. (2003), ‘Like the wise virgins and all that jazz’: using a corpus to examine vague language and shared knowledge. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds), Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective, pp. 1–20. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, A. (2004), ‘How to be vague and that kind of thing’. Presented at the 38th International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Conference, Liverpool.Google Scholar
O'Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (2007), From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1995), The form and function of general extenders in English interactive discourse. PhD thesis, The University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1999), Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. (1997a), On being explicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics 25(3): 250–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. (1997b), Locally contingent categorization in discourse. Discourse Processes 23: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V. and Tayebi, T. (2014), Vaguely speaking in Persian. Discourse Processes 51(7): 565–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parvaresh, V., Tavangar, M., Rasekh, A. E. and Izadi, D. (2012), About his friend, how good she is, and this and that: general extenders in native Persian and non-native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 261–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascale, R. T. and Athos, A. G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1902), Vagueness. In Baldwin, M. J. (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology II, p. 748. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, J. (2011), The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say about Us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, A. (1993), Invoking a hostile world: discussing the patient's future in AIDS counselling. Text 13(2): 291–316.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011), Language is a window into social relations. Cognitive Media. www.cognitivemedia.co.uk, retrieved 5 December 2011.Google Scholar
Pocheptsov, O. G. (1992), Mind your mind: or some ways of distorting facts while telling the truth. Et Cetera: A Review of General Semantics 49(4): 398–404.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (2005), Using participants’ video stimulated comments to complement analyses of interactional practices. In Molder, H. T. and Potter, J. (eds), Conversation and Cognition, pp. 93–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1966), The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath, special issue of The Open Society and its Enemies II. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Powell, M. J. (1985), Purposive vagueness: an evaluative dimension of vague quantifying expressions. Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J. (2010–2015), Calculation for the chi-square test: an interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence (computer software). Available at http://quantpsy.org.Google Scholar
Preisler, B. (1986), Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle 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, pp. 83–97. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Google Scholar
Quaglio, P. (2009), Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S. (1973), A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985), A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. (2014), Unruly Words: A Study of Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. (2003), Language acquisition or language socialization in and through discourse? Towards a redefinition of the domain of SLA. In Candlin, C. and Mercer, N. (eds), English Language Teaching in its Social Context: A Reader, pp. 108–21. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Romero Trillo, J. (2002), The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6): 769–84.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, pp. 79–96. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rue, Y. J. and Zhang, G. Q. (2008), Request Strategies: A Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1923), Vagueness. Australian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 84–92.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. Q. (in press), Communicating through Vague Language: A Comparative Study of L1 and L2 Speakers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1977), Truth and approximations. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers 3: 430–9.Google Scholar
Sassoon, G. W. (2013), Vagueness, Gradability and Typicality: The Interpretation of Adjectives and Nouns. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, L. (2014), Some people: from referential vagueness to social-moral socialization in middle school dance classes. Pragmatics and Society 5(2): 243–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D., ed. (2011), Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1995), Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (2014), The Language of Murder Cases. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. C. (2004), Formulaic expressions in academic speech. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. A. (eds), Discourse in the Professions, pp. 37–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991), Corpus Concordance Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. W. and Jucker, A. H. (2014), ‘Maybe, but probably not’: negotiating likelihood and perspective. Language and Dialogue 4(2): 284–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speer, S.A. (2002), ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: a sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies 4: 511–25.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, pp. 11–46. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1985/86), Loose talk. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series 86: 153–71.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995 [1986]), Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1991), Loose talk. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader, pp. 540–9. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbe, M. and Holmes, J. (1995), You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15(1): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1986a), A matter of prolonged fieldwork: notes towards a modal grammar of English. Applied Linguistics 7(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, M. J. (1990), Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Tárnyiková, J. (2009), Vague reference to notional categories (English–Czech interface). Philologica: Anglica III Linguistica 99: 115–32.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.CrossRefGoogle 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, pp. 198–220. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995), Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tong, R. M., Nguyen, H. T., Yager, R. R. and Ovchinnikov, S., eds (1987), Fuzzy Sets and Applications: Selected Papers by Lotfi A. Zadeh. New York: Wiley.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, pp. 117–37. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Trickett, L. (2012), ‘I get to fly home business class’, retrieved from http://media.smh.com.au/sport (29 July 2012).Google Scholar
Van Deemter, K. (2010), Not Exactly: In Praise of Vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wachtel, T. (1980), Pragmatic approximations. Journal of Pragmatics 4(3): 201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachtel, T. (1981), Distinguishing between approximations. Journal of Pragmatics 5(4): 311–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G. and Birner, B. (1992), The semantics and pragmatics of ‘and everything’. Journal of Pragmatics 19(3): 205–14.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, pp. 182–97. Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1984), Reference and representation as modes of meaning. In Widdowson, H. G. (ed.), Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2 (Chapter 11). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1986), Precision in vagueness: the semantics of English ‘approximatives’. Journal of Pragmatics 10(5): 597–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (1994a), Vagueness. In Asher, R. and Simpson, S. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, pp. 4869–71. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1990), Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D. (2012), Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 48:137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, T. P. (1999), Mohu Yuyanxue (in Chinese) [Fuzzy Linguistics]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (1996), The semantics of fuzzy quantifiers. PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (1998), Fuzziness-vagueness-generality-ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics 29(1): 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (2004), Mohu Yuyixue (in Chinese) [Fuzzy Semantics], 2nd edition. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (2005), Fuzziness and relevance theory. Waiguo Yuyan Wenxue [Foreign Language and Literature Studies] 22(2): 73–84.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (2011), Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(4): 571–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (2013), The impact of touchy topics on vague language use. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 23(1): 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. (2014), The elasticity of I think: stretching its pragmatic functions. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(2): 225–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. and Feng, H. B. (2013), Hanyu zhong de mohu yuyan he huati de minganxing (in Chinese) [The sensitivity of conversational topics and vague language in Mandarin Chinese]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics] 15(1): 45–61.Google Scholar
Zhang, G. Q. and Sabet, P. (in press), Elastic ‘I think’: stretching over L1 and L2. Applied Linguistics, advance access published 1 July 2014, doi:10.1093/applin/amu020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y. P. and Li, J. L. (1999), Culture and Communication. Beijing: China Renmin University Publishing House.Google Scholar
Zhao, X. H. and Zhang, G. Q. (2012), Negotiating with Vague Language: A Chinese Perspective. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar