Four forms of interactional indirection

Four forms of interactional indirection

Building on previous research that points out the limited conception of indirection in pragmatics, we argue that the notion of indirection should be expanded to take into account any use of language that is ‘unconventional’ in a particular community. We argue that at least four types of indirections...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of pragmatics 2010-02, Vol.42 (2), p.292-306
Hauptverfasser: Kiesling, Scott F., Ghosh Johnson, Elka
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Conventionalization
English
Indirectness
Participation
Spanish
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 306
container_issue 2
container_start_page 292
container_title Journal of pragmatics
container_volume 42
creator Kiesling, Scott F.
Ghosh Johnson, Elka
description Building on previous research that points out the limited conception of indirection in pragmatics, we argue that the notion of indirection should be expanded to take into account any use of language that is ‘unconventional’ in a particular community. We argue that at least four types of indirections can be recognized: stance indirection, topic indirection, participation indirection, and production indirection. We then exemplify these different forms of indirection through the analysis of three examples.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85711622</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378216609001490</els_id><sourcerecordid>85711622</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-ea07aa1dabe6ab0bdf2480ec742357891aad551a12af2f977d4034dd73f9d0563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFLxDAUhIMouK7-Aw970lPre0mbtBdBFleFBS96Dq9NIlnaZk26gv_ervXsaRiYGZiPsWuEHAHl3S7fR_roKecAdQ4yByhO2AIrVWcoKnXKFiBUlXGU8pxdpLQDACwELNjtJhziyoXYp1VwKz-MNlI7-jBQNznjo_11l-zMUZfs1Z8u2fvm8W39nG1fn17WD9uMhIQxswSKCA01VlIDjXG8qMC2quCiVFWNRKYskZCT465WyhQgCmOUcLWBUoolu5l39zF8Hmwade9Ta7uOBhsOSVelQpScT8FiDrYxpBSt0_voe4rfGkEfqeidnqnoIxUNUk9Uptr9XLPTiS9vo06tt0Nr56faBP__wA_nrmyj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>85711622</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Four forms of interactional indirection</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Kiesling, Scott F. ; Ghosh Johnson, Elka</creator><creatorcontrib>Kiesling, Scott F. ; Ghosh Johnson, Elka</creatorcontrib><description>Building on previous research that points out the limited conception of indirection in pragmatics, we argue that the notion of indirection should be expanded to take into account any use of language that is ‘unconventional’ in a particular community. We argue that at least four types of indirections can be recognized: stance indirection, topic indirection, participation indirection, and production indirection. We then exemplify these different forms of indirection through the analysis of three examples.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-2166</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1387</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPRADM</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Conventionalization ; English ; Indirectness ; Participation ; Spanish</subject><ispartof>Journal of pragmatics, 2010-02, Vol.42 (2), p.292-306</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-ea07aa1dabe6ab0bdf2480ec742357891aad551a12af2f977d4034dd73f9d0563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-ea07aa1dabe6ab0bdf2480ec742357891aad551a12af2f977d4034dd73f9d0563</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kiesling, Scott F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh Johnson, Elka</creatorcontrib><title>Four forms of interactional indirection</title><title>Journal of pragmatics</title><description>Building on previous research that points out the limited conception of indirection in pragmatics, we argue that the notion of indirection should be expanded to take into account any use of language that is ‘unconventional’ in a particular community. We argue that at least four types of indirections can be recognized: stance indirection, topic indirection, participation indirection, and production indirection. We then exemplify these different forms of indirection through the analysis of three examples.</description><subject>Conventionalization</subject><subject>English</subject><subject>Indirectness</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Spanish</subject><issn>0378-2166</issn><issn>1879-1387</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFLxDAUhIMouK7-Aw970lPre0mbtBdBFleFBS96Dq9NIlnaZk26gv_ervXsaRiYGZiPsWuEHAHl3S7fR_roKecAdQ4yByhO2AIrVWcoKnXKFiBUlXGU8pxdpLQDACwELNjtJhziyoXYp1VwKz-MNlI7-jBQNznjo_11l-zMUZfs1Z8u2fvm8W39nG1fn17WD9uMhIQxswSKCA01VlIDjXG8qMC2quCiVFWNRKYskZCT465WyhQgCmOUcLWBUoolu5l39zF8Hmwade9Ta7uOBhsOSVelQpScT8FiDrYxpBSt0_voe4rfGkEfqeidnqnoIxUNUk9Uptr9XLPTiS9vo06tt0Nr56faBP__wA_nrmyj</recordid><startdate>20100201</startdate><enddate>20100201</enddate><creator>Kiesling, Scott F.</creator><creator>Ghosh Johnson, Elka</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100201</creationdate><title>Four forms of interactional indirection</title><author>Kiesling, Scott F. ; Ghosh Johnson, Elka</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a360t-ea07aa1dabe6ab0bdf2480ec742357891aad551a12af2f977d4034dd73f9d0563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Conventionalization</topic><topic>English</topic><topic>Indirectness</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Spanish</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kiesling, Scott F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ghosh Johnson, Elka</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of pragmatics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kiesling, Scott F.</au><au>Ghosh Johnson, Elka</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Four forms of interactional indirection</atitle><jtitle>Journal of pragmatics</jtitle><date>2010-02-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>292</spage><epage>306</epage><pages>292-306</pages><issn>0378-2166</issn><eissn>1879-1387</eissn><coden>JPRADM</coden><abstract>Building on previous research that points out the limited conception of indirection in pragmatics, we argue that the notion of indirection should be expanded to take into account any use of language that is ‘unconventional’ in a particular community. We argue that at least four types of indirections can be recognized: stance indirection, topic indirection, participation indirection, and production indirection. We then exemplify these different forms of indirection through the analysis of three examples.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0378-2166
ispartof Journal of pragmatics, 2010-02, Vol.42 (2), p.292-306
issn 0378-2166
1879-1387
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85711622
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Conventionalization
English
Indirectness
Participation
Spanish
title Four forms of interactional indirection
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T10%3A33%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Four%20forms%20of%20interactional%20indirection&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20pragmatics&rft.au=Kiesling,%20Scott%20F.&rft.date=2010-02-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=292&rft.epage=306&rft.pages=292-306&rft.issn=0378-2166&rft.eissn=1879-1387&rft.coden=JPRADM&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E85711622%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=85711622&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0378216609001490&rfr_iscdi=true