Before determining in which cases vagueness is a positive or negative aspect of language, it is important to take a look at the functions of language. Because vagueness can be both a weakness and a positive aspect of language, it is the context in which it was being used that would decide whether or not it is positive or negative; and, of course, that context could come from which function of language a person is being vague in. Some functions of language are to communicate, to give commands, to be poetic, to express emotion, to refer to things, to order food in a restaurant, to find out where a place is, to argue, and to exchange information.
Vagueness is often looked upon as a weakness of language, and often rightfully so. There are many circumstances under which vagueness can be a weakness of language, especially concerning the interests of knowledge. For example, if a doctor is vague in giving instructions to a patient, the outcome is most likely to be negative. If the patient does not have a clear understanding of exactly what he or she is to do, then his or her situation can only worsen. Vagueness while giving any instructions, for that matter, is a weakness of language and would have a negative effect on knowledge; not much knowledge could be acquired through instructions that are vague. Similarly, one has to be precise when giving directions. If one was to ask how to get to the Vatican, for example, an answer such as “drive into the city and you should find it” would not be a good answer, as a) the answer is not precise, b) the internal city of Rome is big and complicated enough for the Vatican to be anywhere, and c) because the answer is so vague, the person would most likely end up lost within a matter of minutes. When ordering food in a restaurant, it would be better to be as precise as possible or a person may not end up with exactly what he or she ordered. It is a weakness to be vague in arguing, because if one is not clear as to what his or her point is, then it would be difficult for the person to back up his or her argument. Language is a means of communication, and when dealing with transactional communication (i.e. ~ to get things done), the language must be unambiguous. Both the sender and the receiver must understand the same thing. It is important to be unambiguous when referring to things as well (ex. ~ it would be better to refer to the desk you sit in during English class as “the second to right desk in the first row” rather then “one of the desks in the first row”).
Of course there are also situations in which vagueness can be considered a positive aspect of language. Literature is one such example. Many of Shakespeare’s ideas remain ambiguous until today, but the ambiguity of some of his language is part of what makes his language so intelligent and creative. In the play Hamlet, for example, there are many different interpretations to the famous line, “to be or not to be”. Whereas some choose to believe that Hamlet was referring to existence in general, others feel that he was referring directly to his own existence; there are even some who think the line was Hamlet’s way of contemplating whether or not to kill King Claudius. The exact meaning (that is, if there is only one meaning) remains ambiguous to this day, but that is certainly not something necessarily negative. Part of the beauty of the quote is in not knowing and the amount of room it leaves for interpretation. The UN Resolution on Iraq is deliberately vague in some respects in order to get different countries’ agreement. Sometimes vagueness is required in constitutions and treaties to keep relative peace among people. Another positive aspect of vagueness is to prevent someone from feeling hurt. One may be deliberately vague in answering a question such as “what did you think of my speech?” by answering “the audience seemed to be paying attention…”; the answer does not even specifically address the question asked, as the person does not reveal what he/she thought of the speech. Perhaps the person felt the speech was absolutely preposterous but to not hurt a friend’s feelings, he/she stated how it was “interesting according to the audience”, not the person him/herself.
In conclusion, vagueness and ambiguity can be both a weakness and a positive aspect of language. It depends on the context in which it is used. Seeing as that vagueness does have its positive aspects, there is no reason as to why it should be eliminated in the interests of knowledge. As a matter of fact, a simpler solution would be to be more precise when required rather than eliminating vagueness from the entire face of language.
