Cover not available
Part of
The Discourse of Indirectness: Cues, voices and functions
Edited by Zohar Livnat, Pnina Shukrun-Nagar and Galia Hirsch
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 316] 2020
► pp. 85–96

Indirectness and co-construction

A discourse-pragmatic view

 | University of Southern Denmark (emer.)
Indirectness in language can basically be understood in two different ways: on the one hand, there is the indirectness that is associated with the meaning (either literal or ‘indirect’) of the speaker’s words; on the other hand, we have the indirectness that is specific for the discourse, understood as the textual work of co-constructing meaning. The first kind of indirectness is a semantic-contextual one; the other kind (while also relying on the context for its interpretation) is a pragmatic one, as it involves the active collaboration of the interactants in language use. It is this latter understanding of indirectness, in particular as it concerns the ‘voices’ of the interactants and their access to the underlying ‘indirect’ meanings of the discourse that will be the subject of my contribution.
Keywords: indirect speech acts, egocentric vs. pluricentric acts, pragmatic acts, adaptability, co-locution, context and co-text, voice, textual collaboration, (free) indirect discourse, ‘erasure’
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Two kinds of indirectness?
  • 2.Egocentric vs. pluricentric acts
  • 3.Adapting to pluricentricity: On facts and ‘indirect speech’
  • 4.The dialectics of context
  • 5.The dynamics of discourse
  • 6.Indirectness and discourse: the discoursants’ voices
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.316.04mey
References (21)
References
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 1994. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. by Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist, trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press. [1986]Google Scholar
Cooren, François. 2015. “In Medias Res: Communication, Existence, and Materiality.” Communication Research and Practice. London: Routledge. (Accessed October 3, 2017). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deyssel, Lodewijk van (ps. Karel Alberdingk Thijm). 1898. Verzamelde Opstellen (‘Collected Essays’), Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
Drezner, Daniel W. 2018. “The White House is Interested in Thucydides.” [URL] (Accessed January 20, 2018).
Dyson, Freeman J. 2014. “The Case for Blunders.” New York Review of Books, March 6.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. César. 2005. “Indirectness and Politeness in Mexican Requests.” In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by David Eddington, 66–78, Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hougaard, Anders. 2018. “The World at Our Feet.” RASK: International Journal of Language and Communication 47: 3–12.Google Scholar
Ignatius de Loyola, St. 1541. Ep[istolae] in Monumenta Ignatiana: Epistolae et Instructiones, 12 v. (Madrid 1903–1911).Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Johannes. 1916. Mit livs legende (‘The legend of my life’), Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Google Scholar
Kempis, Thomas A. 1418. De imitatione Christi (‘On the Imitation of Christ’).Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F., and Elka G. Johnson. 2010. “Four Forms of Interactional Indirection.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2): 292–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 1985. Whose Language? A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. “Edifying Archie – or: How to Fool the Reader.” In Pretending to Communicate, ed. by Herman Parret, 154–172, Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2000. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009. “Adaptation in Human-Computer Interaction.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics: An introduction (Second Edition), ed. by Jacob L. Mey, 7–13. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2018. “Expanding Pragmatics: Values, Goals, and Adaptability.” In Proceedings Pragmasophia II , September 18–22, 2018. Lisbon: Faculty of Communication and Social Sciences, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. (Forthcoming)
Moggach, Deborah. 2011. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1949. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot [1916].Google Scholar
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. 1817. Ozymandias. In The Complete Poems of John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley. p. 589. New York: The Modern Library, n.y.Google Scholar
Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press [1930].Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cornish, Francis
2021. L’anaphore revisitée : fonctionnements discursifs et interactionnels. Langue française N° 210:2 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Cornish, Francis
2024. Anaphoriques en première mention : « Épiphénomène », ou modèle pour le fonctionnement de l’anaphore ?. Journal of French Language Studies 34:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 2024. 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.