Vague Language and Approximation

Sort of and kind of are conversational softeners: sort of tired, kind of like it. Different structures are possible before a noun: a kind of memoir names something resembling a memoir, while kind of a memoir conversationally softens the classification itself. Of is not omitted in these full forms.

More or less means 'approximately' and can appear before a quality, an action or at the end: more or less ready; I more or less agree; It's ready, more or less. Other markers are mobile too: To some extent, I agree; I agree to some extent. Commas are needed for a parenthetical reading, but not in every position.

The first function is flexibility: speakers do not commit themselves beyond what they can confirm. Forecasts, project status and evaluations of unfinished work naturally call for qualification while exact information is unknown.

The second is solidarity. In informal conversation, sort of and kind of reduce an authoritative tone and create a sense of shared ground: 'I do not claim to have the last word'. The third is gentleness in criticism and disagreement: a friendly evaluation with a softener sounds like joint reflection rather than a verdict.

To some extent and up to a point limit the degree of agreement without specifying an exact amount. In a sense and in a way instead tend to identify a perspective. It is often useful to add exactly what you agree with and where the boundary lies, though context may already make it clear.

A common pattern is partial agreement followed by a qualification with but or however. Without that continuation, the expression can still be meaningful if the participants already know the point of disagreement.

Sort of and kind of belong to conversational register: they sound natural among friends or colleagues but are generally unsuitable in a formal report. In writing and formal presentations, prefer to some extent, in a sense, up to a point or the fairly neutral more or less.

Style and grammar are different issues. Kind of in meeting minutes may be too conversational for the intended tone, but this does not make the sentence ungrammatical. Consider the audience and the text's purpose.

A softener and an intensifier do not always contradict each other: sort of very strange can cautiously present the strong judgement 'very strange'. Kind of absolutely terrifying is possible as a conversational evaluation with a hesitant tone. Such combinations may be stylistically heavy, but should not be declared a general grammatical error.

Check what is being limited: the strength of the quality, the speaker's certainty, or the applicability of the evaluation to a particular aspect. If to some extent entirely wrong leaves this distinction unclear, clarify it: entirely wrong about the dates, but right about the causes. This is advice for clarity, not a ban on all combinations.

In some contexts, vagueness harms rather than softens: medication doses, safety instructions, legal conditions, and addresses or times where accuracy determines whether someone reaches their destination. Knowing when to turn vagueness off is as much a part of pragmatic competence as knowing how to use it.

If some information needs to remain open, leave open only what genuinely has not been decided and state everything known precisely. The qualification is then honest: the listener knows what is unsettled and what is not.

The most convincing deliberate vagueness is followed immediately by one precise detail. We are more or less there without a continuation leaves the listener guessing; adding only the testing remains gives both the overall picture and a specific action.

Several softeners may convey hesitation in live conversation. In a concise explanation, one plus a concrete detail is often enough. The number of markers does not itself determine grammatical correctness.

There are two types of marker. The and-type continues a list: and so on, and so forth, and the like, and suchlike, and things like that, and that sort of thing, and stuff (like that), and whatnot, and all that. The or-type signals uncertainty or an open choice: or something, or something like that, or whatever, and also or someone and or somewhere for a person or place.

The choice depends on style. And the like and etc. are often found in writing; and so on is a common neutral option. And stuff, and whatnot and or whatever are conversational. Suchlike can also be informal, so it is not a universal replacement for formal writing. In a precise document, it is better to name the required items explicitly.

The marker’s register should match the register of the whole text. This is another reason why the ‘right’ marker depends on the situation, not only its meaning.

In and the like, like is invariable: do not add -s. The likes of is a different construction, as in the likes of him. And so on and and so forth likewise have no plural form.

The abbreviation etc. is read as et cetera and already includes the meaning ‘and’, so do not put and before it. The conversational markers stuff and whatnot also have no plural in this use.

A second marker immediately after the first is usually redundant because both refer to the same remaining items. One clear marker is better than two.

An and-marker follows the examples named; sometimes one example is enough if the wider category is clear: music and stuff. Whether a comma appears before the marker depends on the structure and style of the list.

An or-marker can signal an approximate label or an open choice: He is a doctor or something means a doctor or someone with a similar role. And so on, by contrast, continues a list; its appropriateness depends on whether the other intended activities or items are clear.

An and-marker usually means ‘this and similar things’; an or-marker means ‘this or something close to it’. When describing the actual contents of a box, a list with and is natural; if the speaker is unsure what is inside, or something is possible.

The examples together with the context should suggest the intended group. Paints, brushes and canvases readily relate to painting. Different kinds of items can also form a clear category, such as everything needed for a hike, but without shared context the marker leaves the reader to guess too much.

This also applies to actions and properties: reading, writing, and so on suggests learning skills, whereas a sequence of unrelated actions does not. A useful self-check is to ask whether the listener would know what to add to the list.

A vague marker is inappropriate when the listener must act on every item, as in safety instructions, contracts, tables of values and checklists. The person following them should not have to infer what ‘and other things’ conceals.

A second risk is a false impression of completeness. If you have checked only two options, a marker implies that the rest are similar even though you do not know that. It is more accurate to name what was checked and state explicitly what was not.

A third problem arises when the listener does not share your category, for example a reader from another field or culture. The marker then points to nothing recoverable. When a list really is exhaustive, say so explicitly with nothing else or only.

This rule concerns endings after nouns or lists that refer to the rest of a category. Numerical approximations such as about, roughly and or so before or after numbers belong to the rule on approximation with quantifiers and hedges. Sort of and kind of before an adjective, verb or noun belong to the rule on deliberate vagueness for pragmatic purposes.

Position and function make the boundary clear. The queue was roughly forty people long approximates a quantity, not a category. The meeting was sort of tense softens an adjective. The queue included students, retirees, and the like refers to the remaining people in the same group, which is the function covered by this rule.

Before using a marker, ask four questions. Can the listener recover the category? Is an incomplete list acceptable here? What register does the text use? Is this a list, calling for and, or uncertainty, calling for or?

A similar message can easily be rewritten for a different reader: a conversational marker in a chat, a written-style marker in a report, and explicitly named items in instructions. Being able to move between these options is part of fluent use of vague language.

The most common forms go directly before a number or quantity: approximately, roughly, around, about, some, and circa, used with dates and figures. Formal multiword phrases—in the region of and on the order of, also of the order of in British English—also precede the quantity.

The prepositions in these phrases are fixed: in the region of and on the order of. In the region two million, on the order to ten, and around of fifty are incorrect, as is some of 200 people when some is intended as an approximator.

For clarity, one marker is usually enough. Roughly around can sound redundant, although combinations of approximate markers occur in speech. Exactly and approximately contradict each other when they describe the same number in the same sense.

Put or so and or thereabouts after a number or quantity phrase: seventy or so members, seventy members or so. Give or take means allowing for a small amount more or less and also often follows the estimate: a hundred pounds, give or take.

Add -odd to a number with a hyphen: sixty-odd members. This means a little more than sixty; it does not allow for a number below sixty. -Ish adds an informal tone: sixish, fifty-ish.

About 200 or so is possible, especially in conversation, but one marker is usually enough: about 200 or 200 or so. This is a matter of concision, not a general grammatical ban.

Roughly, around, about, and approximately do not specify a direction of variation. Nearly, almost, and just under usually indicate a quantity below the reference point; just over indicates slightly more, and well over considerably more. Upwards of gives a lower reference point: roughly, the stated quantity or more.

Choosing a directional form communicates a fact about the quantity. You cannot clarify nearly 50 by saying actually 53. Neutral about 50 does not create that contradiction.

Directional forms also combine with fractions: nearly half, just over a third, well over two thirds.

Approximators naturally precede fractions, such as half, a third, and two thirds, and comparisons, such as double, twice as, and three times as: roughly half of the voters, about double the price.

Direction matters here: 49 per cent is almost half, not over half. A precise directional expression communicates more information than general roughly.

A fraction is often followed by of the + noun, and the verb agrees with that noun: Roughly half of the voters were undecided.

A couple of, a handful of, dozens of, and hundreds of already give a general sense of quantity. Couple can mean exactly two or, informally, a few; handful means a small quantity without a fixed number. Another approximation marker is often unnecessary, but not every such combination is automatically ungrammatical.

An approximator can precede a numerical phrase: approximately a dozen, about a hundred. Plural dozens has no indefinite article: dozens of people, not a dozens of people.

Dozens indicates a quantity measured in tens, and hundreds one measured in hundreds; handful simply emphasises a small quantity. It does not set a limit of five or six.

Formal approximators—approximately, in the region of, on the order of, and circa—are natural in reports, articles, and presentations. Around, about, or so, give or take, and -ish range from neutral to conversational. The choice depends on the audience, not on the number's precision.

The degree of rounding should match the precision required. Roughly 2,000 is natural for a crowd estimate. An approximate decimal value is also possible, such as approximately 1.73 metres: a measurement can be highly precise without being absolutely exact. Decimal places do not in themselves conflict with approximately.

The order of magnitude is often enough: on the order of ten thousand communicates scale rather than an estimate accurate to the nearest hundred.

Distinguish an estimate from an exact requirement. If a number specifies an amount to pay, an instructed dose, or a particular technical limit, do not replace it with an arbitrary approximation. Documents in these fields can nevertheless contain explicitly labelled estimates or permitted ranges.

A single text can easily use both approaches: an approximate attendance estimate alongside an exact invoice total. The reader can see which information is estimated and which is documented.

Do not combine an approximator with a marker of exactness such as exactly or precisely: this is why exactly approximately is contradictory.