Why and how do we stretch our words? While there have been some insightful approaches to answer this question, there lacks an overarching theoretical account. This book develops a theoretical framework to explain the theory of elasticity, based on natural language data and a comparative analysis of EL form, function and context. It reveals the significant role EL plays in our communication, particularly in the ways speakers stretch language to negotiate and co-construct meaning in exchanges. Elasticity is an image that allows us to see how EL stretches along and across various continua in a fluid fashion. It works to strengthen and weaken speech tones, firm and soften a speaker's stance, perform institutional roles and resist cooperation, and resolve conflicts between seeking and evading truth. EL adapts to the demands of context, effectively managing the tension between emphasis and mitigation, seeking truth and evading the truth. The maxims of EL use are confirmed in the interactions among interlocutors, as are the interconnections between the elasticisation of language and discursive and social influences. EL is inherently unspecified or underspecified, and strategic: a positive form of language.
The elasticity theory developed in this study consists of three main principles: the fluidity principle (EL is fluid and overlapping); the stretchability principle (EL is stretchable in multiple directions); and the strategy principle (EL strategically meets the demands of a communication). The use of EL observes four maxims: ‘go approximate’, ‘go general’, ‘go scalar’, and ‘go epistemic’. There are also three features of EL: elasticity is co-constructed as a result of interactional negotiation between the speaker and the hearer; the manifestation of elasticity is influenced by other factors such as social and speech factors; elasticity of language is universal at macro level and specific at micro level, and they are complementary. In principle, elasticity may be a universal linguistic phenomenon existing across cultures and languages, although its particular manifestation is likely to be specific in response to differences in these factors. These findings confirm that using EL is a positive and deliberate communicative tactic. There is little evidence that using EL causes miscommunication.
EL is non-monotonic and multidimensional (stretching upwards, downwards and horizontally). Elasticity is manifested through stretchers and their pragmatic functions. There are interconnections and correlations between lexical items (stretchers), pragmatic functions (elastics), and the four maxims; these relationships also overlap.
Elasticity is co-constructed and negotiated among participants. The process features both a common interest in resolving a situation and conflicts between interlocutors. The stretch work features local and global elasticity and reciprocity, and is determined by communicative goals. Both cooperative and competitive EL functions appear to be frequent and powerful, challenging the present idealised focus on cooperative functions. EL tends to be used for cooperation in win–win discourses and for competitive purposes in win–lose discourses. While these functions appear oppositional, participants readily switch between them as best suits their immediate discursive need.
This book promotes the term ‘elastic language’, which does justice to the desirability of a form of language that has not been given the attention it rightly deserves. The concept of elasticity interconnects with other concepts such as vagueness, generality, and unspecificness. The findings of this study demonstrate the fruitfulness of stretching words to suit communicative needs, and the analysis carried out within the proffered elasticity-theoretical framework provides plausible explanations of stretching at work. Specifically, the findings provide answers to the three research questions raised in Section 1.3 and reprised below.
10.1 How is elastic language distributed?
Determining how EL is distributed requires a quantitative approach. EL is realised through four linguistic categories: (1) approximate stretcher (e.g. about 20, many); (2) general stretcher (e.g. things, and things like that); (3) scalar stretcher (e.g. very, a bit); (4) epistemic stretcher (e.g. maybe, I think). The top 20 stretchers, ranking from the most frequent, are very, some, anything, something, lot (a lot, a lot of, lot of, lots of), quite, things, a bit, much, probably, sort of, could be, about, possible/possibly, maybe, stuff, a little bit, too, so, or something. The ranking provides an overall picture of EL distribution. Further analysis of the four categories of stretcher and their versatile clusters reveals the non-discrete nature of the category boundaries, suggesting the fluidity of EL. It finds that participants are less variable in overall frequency level, but more variable in using individual items. They use boosters more consistently than they use hedges.
10.2 What are the pragmatic functions of elastic language?
The pragmatic functions of EL are revealed through a qualitative approach. The naturally occurring data used in this study were undoubtedly advantageous in their wealth of empirical evidence of the different functions of EL, showing how it stretches and adjusts its ‘rubber band’ qualities to achieve communicative goals.
Six pragmatic functions – just-right, rapport, mitigating, intensifying, self-protection, and evasive – are selected for scrutiny. The just-right elastic expresses tentativeness when precise information is unavailable or unimportant. Approximate stretchers are typically used with the just-right elastic, when an estimate is good enough for the context. Rapport elastic is a strategy for establishing solidarity, informality, and friendliness, and general extenders such as things like that typically realise this function by establishing sameness and group identity. Mitigating elastic wards off face threats, toning down or lowering the force of a claim, and is typically accomplished by using downtoners and softeners in discourses of a negative or sensitive nature. Intensifying elastic increases the strength of a claim, typically by using scalar words such as very and a lot, also called boosters or intensifiers. Intensifying elastic is an emphatic, authoritative and institutional marker, as well as a device used to hide information.
Self-protection elastic hedges a statement to safeguard the speaker's interests, typically realised by shields (e.g. I think, probably, seem to) which convey the speaker's lack of full commitment and their reluctance to let others know their true intention. Evasive elastic is used to withhold information and deflect questions – signs of non-cooperation. When evasiveness occurs, the hearer tends either to accept it if it does not interfere with the communication, or challenge it if it becomes obstructive. There are some correlations between the four categories of stretcher and the six EL strategies, but no systematic correlation can be established because of the non-linear behaviour of EL. For example, some can be both an approximate stretcher and a general stretcher, and many can be both an approximate stretcher and a scalar stretcher. Some disfluencies occur around EL expressions, exemplified by padding expressions (e.g. well, you know) and non-verbal activities (pause). These indicate that the speaker has stopped to think about how to make the best use of EL for the immediate need.
10.3 How does elastic language interact with social and speech factors?
EL is socially situated, and a speaker's stance may be shaped and influenced by certain social factors. This study found a limited impact of power and gender on the use of EL at overall distribution level. The lack of significant difference in the total number of hedges and boosters used by officers and passengers indicates that each group is as assertive or unassertive as the other – a rather surprising result, given the assumed authoritative position of the officers, and suggesting that EL is not necessarily indexical of power status at a general level. More impact is revealed at the individual level, however.
The power asymmetry between officer and passenger, in the sense that officers tend to initiate conversations and ask questions, does not stop both groups using similar rates of boosters and hedges. There is no evidence that passengers are less emphatic or tentative than officers. The groups take turns in claiming, reclaiming or adjusting power, in a manner that indicates how changeable power relations may be. EL is a powerful device in handling tension: caught between trusting what a passenger says and carrying out their duties, officers often resort to elasticity. EL also enables them to show empathy with passengers who are distressed and confused, without abandoning their institutional duties.
Men (male officers and passengers) and women (female officers and passengers) use similar frequencies of boosters in total number and of individual types as well. Gender difference is evident in the use of hedges: men use more hedges, and differ from women in their choice of hedge. This finding goes against the common assumption that women use more hedges, and does not support the claim that EL is women's language. In this study, men are the more tentative and women the more assertive. Power and gender factors have certain impacts on the use of EL, but not necessarily in the same way. For example, men use more hedges than women, but there is no difference between officers and passengers. Men prefer the same types of booster as women, but officers and passengers prefer different types.
Speech event (drug vs non-drug case), speech genre (monologue vs dialogue) and language competence (L1 vs L2) impact on the use of EL in one way or another. Participants use more EL in severe situations such as drug cases. In particular, they use fewer hedges in non-drug cases, suggesting that EL is beneficial in dangerous encounters. The most influential factor is speech genre (dialogues use much more EL than monologues), while language competence (L1 vs L2) makes no difference at all to the overall frequencies of booster and hedge but does affect their individual frequencies. This finding indicates that EL is more frequently employed in interactive than in non-interactive situations. This indicates that EL is interactive and simultaneous in nature, and it is relational rather than narrative. Drug and non-drug cases are different in terms of severity of outcome, and hedges appear more in drug cases, indicating that mitigating or evading tactics are employed more in stressful situations. The severity of a situation and hedging are positively related. L1 and L2 speakers emphasise and hedge at similar overall rates, but prefer different types of EL; and L1 speakers employ all four hedges more adeptly than L2, suggesting a lack of linguistic ability to manage many different forms of EL by L2 speakers. There is one cross-board phenomenon: a significant difference in the use of individual forms of EL for all three speech factors. About is insensitive to speech factors, but something is more sensitive.
As this study is carried out on an institutional corpus, the conclusions should not be over-claimed. While it may be too soon to claim that the patterns derived from this study are universal and apply across languages, these findings have value as they put EL in the spotlight.
10.4 Implications
Language without elasticity is a dead reef and going nowhere. EL is a live ocean and reaches everywhere. This study investigates how EL games are played in tension-prone situations and explicates the pragma-linguistic use of stretch work. The elasticity theory developed in this book adds an important theoretical dimension to the study of EL.
The notion of elasticity promoted in this study implies there are degrees and relativity of certainty in language. The concept of elasticity reconceptualises how EL is perceived in linguistics and positions it as a legitimate and valuable interactional construct. EL is dynamic, not fixed. In proposing an elasticity theory, this work calls for a paradigm shift in the way we think about language, something that may be profoundly challenging for many because the theory challenges the deeply ingrained ideology that precise language is always better than EL. EL should not be a taboo topic: it is a natural part of the fabric of our language, and the sooner we acknowledge it the better we can maximise its power in communication.
The new knowledge of this overlooked phenomenon raises a fundamental question for linguistics research: Does language have to be clear-cut? The answer is no, as linguistic communication is naturally elastic. The findings in this study offer an early map of the linguistic landscape of adversarial discourse, where operations of a cooperative and competitive nature are as integral to each other as mountains and valleys. Rescher (Reference Rescher2008) states that vagueness does not stop a statement from being true and useful, and VL is just as true and useful as any other type of language, if not more. This study may help people to take a less idealised view of the necessity for precision.
This study highlights features of institutional interaction, including discursive negotiations and multimodal exchanges, where elasticity is a ubiquitous feature. Elasticity is expected to be applicable to other parts of linguistics and to cross cultures, particularly with its principles of fluidity, stretchability and strategy.
This study has some practical implications. It may provide guidance in training customs officers by strengthening their interactional skills, and by extension may be useful in training other groups engaged in adversarial discourses, such as police, attorneys and politicians; the findings of this study may also be useful to witnesses or people standing accused of crime. It may educate businessmen in how EL is used cross-culturally. Adding EL to training curricula will enable professionals to use EL effectively and avoid misunderstanding people who use EL. There are institutional requirements for officers, and everyone else in various situations, to be more skilful when they convey less specific information through EL.
This study may also be beneficial for language education, if language courses incorporate EL. Vagueness is part of communication skills teaching (Channell Reference Channell1994: 205). Cotterill (Reference Cotterill and Cutting2007: 113) points out that people may use VL for purposes other than evasiveness or deception, especially L2 speakers whose linguistic knowledge is limited. It is important for language educators to be aware that VL is not a sign of linguistic inadequacy: vague expressions in fact are ‘part of the linguistic repertoire of the competent language user, who uses them to accomplish particular communicative goals’ (Channell Reference Channell1994: 197), and it is misleading to exclude it. A language learner who does not know how to use VL in the target language ‘may sound rather bookish and pedantic to a native speaker’ (Reference Channell1994: 21). It is important, particularly at the advanced level, to master EL to become a competent speaker. Students need to know things like how to mitigate, how to express politeness, and how to speak imprecisely.
While there is currently a preference for non-existent ‘precise language’, EL represents the real-life patterns of language use, which have important implications for ways in which language is analysed, for the study of real-world human communication, and for the field of linguistics as a whole.
10.5 Future research
Wardhaugh (Reference Wardhaugh1993: 181) predicts that ‘vagueness rather than precision will prevail’. This study contributes to the theory and knowledge of the complexity of EL by developing the elasticity theory and offering fresh insight into the use of EL in institutional settings. Although the elasticity theory is proposed here primarily to explain the pragmatic behaviour of EL, it may also be applicable to other linguistic phenomena such as syntax and prosody.
Further research includes the application of elasticity theory to inter-cultural or cross-cultural communication. This will demonstrate if the theory is universal or specific, and if there is a need for more than one theory to deal with EL in various cultures and languages: Will one theory fit all, or do we need to have a separate theory for each language? For example, English and Chinese are typologically far apart, so if evidence shows that the realisation of EL is similar in both languages, and that speakers use EL similarly in ways that can be explained adequately by elasticity theory, then EL and elasticity theory are universal as far as these two languages are concerned. Such findings will not only make a contribution to EL itself, but also to inter- and cross-cultural communication in general.
Further theoretical explorations can be pursued as well. For example, the data show that men use more hedges than women. Are men socially conditioned to be more accommodating and so use these techniques, or is there another reason for this gender difference? Is the difference social or innate? Is EL inherent or developmental?
EL is a ‘broad and fruitful area of language study’ (Channell Reference Channell1994: 198). Further EL research could be cross-discourse (e.g. classroom, police interviews, political speech), cross-disciplinary (e.g. engineering texts, arts texts), cross-genre (e.g. written language, non-verbal), cross-time (e.g. longitude, diachronic), or cross-approach (e.g. psychological, cognitive): all of these will enhance the richness of EL study.
