Name : IRMA LEORENSIA 0910733110

Indirectness
As the title suggests, my paper will deal the phenomenon of indirectness. Since this is a wide concept that embraces a whole range of linguistic and pragmatic features. I will explain about defining indirectness, identifyng inderectness, measuring indirectness and reasons for indirectness. I do this paper as well as i can. Defining indirectness Indirectness is a phenomenon employed in language use which means that the meaning conveyed by the spoken or written message is not delivered directly. The message carries more than what is explicitly said or written as far as the meaning is concerned. Thomas (1995: 119120) says that indirectness occurs when the expressed meaning and the implied meaning mismatch and that it is a universal phenomenon. She also claims that not all indirectness is intentional but what concerns pragmatics it is only the intentional one that is significant. Example : It is raining. If used directly, it states exactly the fact it describes. Nothing less, nothing more. However, if used indirectly, it can express a whole range of different meanings. It can be for example a piece of good advice in the sense of you should take your umbrella, an appeal such as cancel your trip, a critical comment such as you knew it was expected, or even a complaint in the sense of I cant work in the garden. At this moment we can ask how it is possible to understand and correctly interpret the meaning if it is not directly expressed by the speaker or writer. Yule in his Pragmatics (1996: 85) answer it, that Our ability to arrive automatically at interpretations of the unwritten and the unsaid must be based on pre-existing knowledge structures. He discusses the familiar patterns we have from our previous experience and use to interpret new experiences. This pattern is called a schema a pre-existing knowledge structure in memory. Measuring indirectness

Thomas (1995: 124) specifies the main universal factors governing the choice of how indirect we are : The relative power of the speaker over the hearer; The social distance between the speaker and the hearer; The degree to which X is rated an imposition in culture Relative rights and obligations between the speaker and the hearer. Reasoning for indirectness Maybe there is a simple reason why people do indirectness when talk to each others. Thomas (1995: 122) adds a few examples: e.g. the people do not wish to hurt someone else, appear pushy, or they want to show how clever they are, they may want to avoid using a taboo word or topic or being a prey to superstitions. They usually want to avoid some negative consequences or obtain some advantage. The addresser may also wish to express tentativeness, hesitancy or he/she may be simply not sure about truthfulness of the message. The frequent reason for employing indirectness is also politeness. Direct utterances are usually considered impolite. English speakers tend to avoid certainty. As Urbanov (2008: 44) states, they employ communication strategies to constantly stress uncertainty in their utterances. The English speaker avoids authoritative generalizing and making straight statements. With regard to meaning,he/she tries to leave his/her message open to enable the recipient to express his/her point of view and argue about the speakers utterance.

Conclusion Indirectness is a phenomenon employed in language use which means that the meaning conveyed by the spoken or written message is not delivered directly. It is often used as a means of determining politeness, to avoid embarrassment, to make the conversation runs smoothly, and harmonious relationship among the participants. In directness is costly and risky, the speakers are behaving in a rational manner and given the universality of indirectness, and for the purpose of this intentional indirectness people shall ignore the possibility that something cannot be expressed.

Work Cites 1. Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Harlow: Longman, 1995. 2. Urbanov, Ludmila. Implicit and Explicit Dialogic Structure in Fiction. Linguistica Pragensia 12.1-2 (2002): 83-92. 3. Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.