Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and
semiotics that studies the ways in which context
contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses
speech act theory, conversational implicature,
talk in interaction and other approaches to
language behavior in philosophy, sociology,
linguistics and anthropology. Unlike semantics,
which examines meaning that is conventional
or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics
studies how the transmission of meaning depends
not only on structural and linguistic knowledge
(e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker
and listener, but also on the context of the
utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about
those involved, the inferred intent of the
speaker, and other factors. In this respect,
pragmatics explains how language users are
able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since
meaning relies on the manner, place, time,
etc. of an utterance.The ability to understand
another speaker's intended meaning is called
pragmatic competence.
== Ambiguity ==
The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous.
Without knowing the context, the identity
of the speaker or the speaker's intent, it
is difficult to infer the meaning with certainty.
For example, it could mean:
the space that belongs to you has green ambient
lighting;
you are driving through a green traffic signal;
you no longer have to wait to continue driving;
you are permitted to proceed in a non-driving
context;
your body is cast in a greenish glow; or
you possess a light bulb that is tinted green.Similarly,
the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars"
could mean that Sherlock observed the man
by using binoculars, or it could mean that
Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars
(syntactic ambiguity). The meaning of the
sentence depends on an understanding of the
context and the speaker's intent. As defined
in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract
entity—a string of words divorced from non-linguistic
context—as opposed to an utterance, which
is a concrete example of a speech act in a
specific context. The more closely conscious
subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings,
and topics, the more easily others can surmise
their meaning; the further they stray from
common expressions and topics, the wider the
variations in interpretations. This suggests
that sentences do not have intrinsic meaning,
that there is no meaning associated with a
sentence or word, and that either can only
represent an idea symbolically. The cat sat
on the mat is a sentence in English. If someone
were to say to someone else, "The cat sat
on the mat," the act is itself an utterance.
This implies that a sentence, term, expression
or word cannot symbolically represent a single
true meaning; such meaning is underspecified
(which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially
ambiguous. By contrast, the meaning of an
utterance can be inferred through knowledge
of both its linguistic and non-linguistic
contexts (which may or may not be sufficient
to resolve ambiguity). In mathematics, with
Berry's paradox, there arises a similar systematic
ambiguity with the word "definable".
== Etymology ==
The word pragmatics derives via Latin pragmaticus
from the Greek πραγματικός (pragmatikos),
meaning amongst others "fit for action", which
comes from πρᾶγμα (pragma), "deed,
act", and that from πράσσω (prassō),
"to pass over, to practise, to achieve".
== Origins of the field ==
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist
linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure.
In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that
language has an analyzable structure, composed
of parts that can be defined in relation to
others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic
study, as opposed to examining the historical
development of language. However, it rejected
the notion that all meaning comes from signs
existing purely in the abstract space of langue.
Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has also
come into being. This field only gained linguists'
attention in the 70s. This is when two different
schools emerged; notably the Anglo-American
pragmatic thought and the European continental
pragmatic thought (also called the perspective
view).
== Areas of interest ==
The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing
on the phonetic or grammatical form of an
utterance, but instead on what the speaker's
intentions and beliefs are.
The study of the meaning in context, and the
influence that a given context can have on
the message. It requires knowledge of the
speaker's identities, and the place and time
of the utterance.
The study of implicatures, i.e. the things
that are communicated even though they are
not explicitly expressed.
The study of relative distance, both social
and physical, between speakers in order to
understand what determines the choice of what
is said and what is not said.
The study of what is not meant, as opposed
to the intended meaning, i.e. that which is
unsaid and unintended, or unintentional.
Information structure, the study of how utterances
are marked in order to efficiently manage
the common ground of referred entities between
speaker and hearer
Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects
of meaning and use for which context of use
is an important factor, by using the methods
and goals of formal semantics.
== Referential uses of language ==
When we speak of the referential uses of language
we are talking about how we use signs to refer
to certain items. Below is an explanation
of, first, what a sign is, second, how meanings
are accomplished through its usage.
A sign is the link or relationship between
a signified and the signifier as defined by
Saussure and Huguenin. The signified is some
entity or concept in the world. The signifier
represents the signified. An example would
be:
Signified: the concept cat
Signifier: the word "cat"The relationship
between the two gives the sign meaning. This
relationship can be further explained by considering
what we mean by "meaning." In pragmatics,
there are two different types of meaning to
consider: semantico-referential meaning and
indexical meaning. Semantico-referential meaning
refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes
events in the world that are independent of
the circumstance they are uttered in. An example
would be propositions such as:
"Santa Claus eats cookies."In this case, the
proposition is describing that Santa Claus
eats cookies. The meaning of this proposition
does not rely on whether or not Santa Claus
is eating cookies at the time of its utterance.
Santa Claus could be eating cookies at any
time and the meaning of the proposition would
remain the same. The meaning is simply describing
something that is the case in the world. In
contrast, the proposition, "Santa Claus is
eating a cookie right now," describes events
that are happening at the time the proposition
is uttered.
Semantico-referential meaning is also present
in meta-semantical statements such as:
Tiger: carnivorous, a mammalIf someone were
to say that a tiger is a carnivorous animal
in one context and a mammal in another, the
definition of tiger would still be the same.
The meaning of the sign tiger is describing
some animal in the world, which does not change
in either circumstance.
Indexical meaning, on the other hand, is dependent
on the context of the utterance and has rules
of use. By rules of use, it is meant that
indexicals can tell you when they are used,
but not what they actually mean.
Example: "I"Whom "I" refers to depends on
the context and the person uttering it.
As mentioned, these meanings are brought about
through the relationship between the signified
and the signifier. One way to define the relationship
is by placing signs in two categories: referential
indexical signs, also called "shifters," and
pure indexical signs.
Referential indexical signs are signs where
the meaning shifts depending on the context
hence the nickname "shifters." 'I' would be
considered a referential indexical sign. The
referential aspect of its meaning would be
'1st person singular' while the indexical
aspect would be the person who is speaking
(refer above for definitions of semantico-referential
and indexical meaning). Another example would
be:
"This"
Referential: singular count
Indexical: Close byA pure indexical sign does
not contribute to the meaning of the propositions
at all. It is an example of a "non-referential
use of language."
A second way to define the signified and signifier
relationship is C.S. Peirce's Peircean Trichotomy.
The components of the trichotomy are the following:
1. Icon: the signified resembles the signifier
(signified: a dog's barking noise, signifier:
bow-wow)
2. Index: the signified and signifier are
linked by proximity or the signifier has meaning
only because it is pointing to the signified
3. Symbol: the signified and signifier are
arbitrarily linked (signified: a cat, signifier:
the word cat)These relationships allow us
to use signs to convey what we want to say.
If two people were in a room and one of them
wanted to refer to a characteristic of a chair
in the room he would say "this chair has four
legs" instead of "a chair has four legs."
The former relies on context (indexical and
referential meaning) by referring to a chair
specifically in the room at that moment while
the latter is independent of the context (semantico-referential
meaning), meaning the concept chair.
== Non-referential uses of language ==
=== Silverstein's "pure" indexes ===
Michael Silverstein has argued that "nonreferential"
or "pure" indices do not contribute to an
utterance's referential meaning but instead
"signal some particular value of one or more
contextual variables." Although nonreferential
indexes are devoid of semantico-referential
meaning, they do encode "pragmatic" meaning.
The sorts of contexts that such indexes can
mark are varied. Examples include:
Sex indexes are affixes or inflections that
index the sex of the speaker, e.g. the verb
forms of female Koasati speakers take the
suffix "-s".
Deference indexes are words that signal social
differences (usually related to status or
age) between the speaker and the addressee.
The most common example of a deference index
is the V form in a language with a T-V distinction,
the widespread phenomenon in which there are
multiple second-person pronouns that correspond
to the addressee's relative status or familiarity
to the speaker. Honorifics are another common
form of deference index and demonstrate the
speaker's respect or esteem for the addressee
via special forms of address and/or self-humbling
first-person pronouns.
An Affinal taboo index is an example of avoidance
speech that produces and reinforces sociological
distance, as seen in the Aboriginal Dyirbal
language of Australia. In this language and
some others, there is a social taboo against
the use of the everyday lexicon in the presence
of certain relatives (mother-in-law, child-in-law,
paternal aunt's child, and maternal uncle's
child). If any of those relatives are present,
a Dyirbal speaker has to switch to a completely
separate lexicon reserved for that purpose.In
all of these cases, the semantico-referential
meaning of the utterances is unchanged from
that of the other possible (but often impermissible)
forms, but the pragmatic meaning is vastly
different.
=== The performative ===
J.L. Austin introduced the concept of the
performative, contrasted in his writing with
"constative" (i.e. descriptive) utterances.
According to Austin's original formulation,
a performative is a type of utterance characterized
by two distinctive features:
It is not truth-evaluable (i.e. it is neither
true nor false)
Its uttering performs an action rather than
simply describing oneExamples:
"I hereby pronounce you man and wife."
"I accept your apology."
"This meeting is now adjourned."To be performative,
an utterance must conform to various conditions
involving what Austin calls felicity. These
deal with things like appropriate context
and the speaker's authority. For instance,
when a couple has been arguing and the husband
says to his wife that he accepts her apology
even though she has offered nothing approaching
an apology, his assertion is infelicitous—because
she has made neither expression of regret
nor request for forgiveness, there exists
none to accept, and thus no act of accepting
can possibly happen.
=== Jakobson's six functions of language ===
Roman Jakobson, expanding on the work of Karl
Bühler, described six "constitutive factors"
of a speech event, each of which represents
the privileging of a corresponding function,
and only one of which is the referential (which
corresponds to the context of the speech event).
The six constitutive factors and their corresponding
functions are diagrammed below.
The six constitutive factors of a speech event
Context
MessageAddresser---------------------Addressee
Contact
CodeThe six functions of language
Referential
PoeticEmotive-----------------------Conative
Phatic
MetalingualThe Referential Function corresponds
to the factor of Context and describes a situation,
object or mental state. The descriptive statements
of the referential function can consist of
both definite descriptions and deictic words,
e.g. "The autumn leaves have all fallen now."
The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive"
or "affective") Function relates to the Addresser
and is best exemplified by interjections and
other sound changes that do not alter the
denotative meaning of an utterance but do
add information about the Addresser's (speaker's)
internal state, e.g. "Wow, what a view!"
The Conative Function engages the Addressee
directly and is best illustrated by vocatives
and imperatives, e.g. "Tom! Come inside and
eat!"
The Poetic Function focuses on "the message
for its own sake" and is the operative function
in poetry as well as slogans.
The Phatic Function is language for the sake
of interaction and is therefore associated
with the Contact factor. The Phatic Function
can be observed in greetings and casual discussions
of the weather, particularly with strangers.
The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic"
or "reflexive") Function is the use of language
(what Jakobson calls "Code") to discuss or
describe itself.
== Related fields ==
There is considerable overlap between pragmatics
and sociolinguistics, since both share an
interest in linguistic meaning as determined
by usage in a speech community. However, sociolinguists
tend to be more interested in variations in
language within such communities.
Pragmatics helps anthropologists relate elements
of language to broader social phenomena; it
thus pervades the field of linguistic anthropology.
Because pragmatics describes generally the
forces in play for a given utterance, it includes
the study of power, gender, race, identity,
and their interactions with individual speech
acts. For example, the study of code switching
directly relates to pragmatics, since a switch
in code effects a shift in pragmatic force.According
to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to
understand the relationship between signs
and their users, while semantics tends to
focus on the actual objects or ideas to which
a word refers, and syntax (or "syntactics")
examines relationships among signs or symbols.
Semantics is the literal meaning of an idea
whereas pragmatics is the implied meaning
of the given idea.
Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J.L. Austin
and further developed by John Searle, centers
around the idea of the performative, a type
of utterance that performs the very action
it describes. Speech Act Theory's examination
of Illocutionary Acts has many of the same
goals as pragmatics, as outlined above.
Computational Pragmatics, as defined by Victoria
Fromkin, concerns how humans can communicate
their intentions to computers with as little
ambiguity as possible. This process, integral
to the science of natural language processing
(seen as a sub-discipline of artificial intelligence),
involves providing a computer system with
some database of knowledge related to a topic
and a series of algorithms which control how
the system responds to incoming data, using
contextual knowledge to more accurately approximate
natural human language and information processing
abilities. Reference resolution, how a computer
determines when two objects are different
or not, is one of the most important tasks
of computational pragmatics.
== Formalization ==
There has been a great amount of discussion
on the boundary between semantics and pragmatics
and there are many different formalizations
of aspects of pragmatics linked to context
dependence. Particularly interesting cases
are the discussions on the semantics of indexicals
and the problem of referential descriptions,
a topic developed after the theories of Keith
Donnellan. A proper logical theory of formal
pragmatics has been developed by Carlo Dalla
Pozza, according to which it is possible to
connect classical semantics (treating propositional
contents as true or false) and intuitionistic
semantics (dealing with illocutionary forces).
The presentation of a formal treatment of
pragmatics appears to be a development of
the Fregean idea of assertion sign as formal
sign of the act of assertion.
== In literary theory ==
Pragmatics (more specifically, Speech Act
Theory's notion of the performative) underpins
Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity.
In Gender Trouble, she claims that gender
and sex are not natural categories, but socially
constructed roles produced by "reiterative
acting."
In Excitable Speech she extends her theory
of performativity to hate speech and censorship,
arguing that censorship necessarily strengthens
any discourse it tries to suppress and therefore,
since the state has sole power to define hate
speech legally, it is the state that makes
hate speech performative.
Jacques Derrida remarked that some work done
under Pragmatics aligned well with the program
he outlined in his book Of Grammatology.
Émile Benveniste argued that the pronouns
"I" and "you" are fundamentally distinct from
other pronouns because of their role in creating
the subject.
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari discuss
linguistic pragmatics in the fourth chapter
of A Thousand Plateaus ("November 20, 1923--Postulates
of Linguistics"). They draw three conclusions
from Austin: (1) A performative utterance
does not communicate information about an
act second-hand—it is the act; (2) Every
aspect of language ("semantics, syntactics,
or even phonematics") functionally interacts
with pragmatics; (3) There is no distinction
between language and speech. This last conclusion
attempts to refute Saussure's division between
langue and parole and Chomsky's distinction
between surface structure and deep structure
simultaneously.
== Significant works and concepts ==
J. L. Austin's How To Do Things With Words
Paul Grice's cooperative principle and conversational
maxims
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory
Geoffrey Leech's politeness maxims
Levinson's presumptive meanings
Jürgen Habermas's universal pragmatics
Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's relevance
theory
Dallin D. Oaks's Structural Ambiguity in English:
An Applied Grammatical Inventory
== See also ==
== Notes ==
== References ==
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things With
Words. Oxford University Press.
Ariel, Mira (2008), Pragmatics and Grammar,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ariel, Mira (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-73203-1.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson.
(1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances:
The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Clark, Herbert H. (1996) "Using Language".
Cambridge University Press.
Cole, Peter, ed.. (1978) Pragmatics. (Syntax
and Semantics, 9). New York: Academic Press.
Dijk, Teun A. van. (1977) Text and Context.
Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics
of Discourse. London: Longman.
Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way
of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University
Press.
Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. (2005)
The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge
University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings:
The theory of generalized conversational implicature.
MIT Press.
Lin, G. H. C., & Perkins, L. (2005). Cross-cultural
discourse of giving and accepting gifts. International
Journal of Communication, 16,1-2, 103-12 (ERIC
Collections in ED 503685 http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503685.pdf)
Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction.
Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001).
Kepa Korta and John Perry. (2006) Pragmatics.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Potts, Christopher. (2005) The Logic of Conventional
Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, Douglas. (2003). Performative Linguistics:
Speaking and Translating as Doing Things With
Words. London and New York: Routledge.
Robinson, Douglas. (2006). Introducing Performative
Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge.
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. (2005) Pragmatics.
In F. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.) Oxford Handbook
of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP, Oxford, 468-501.
(Also available here.)
Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction:
An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.
Verschueren, Jef. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics.
London, New York: Arnold Publishers.
Verschueren, Jef, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert,
eds. (1995) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin and
Don D. Jackson (1967) Pragmatics of Human
Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns,
Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1991) Cross-cultural Pragmatics.
The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics (Oxford Introductions
to Language Study). Oxford University Press.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. "Shifters, Linguistic
Categories, and Cultural Description," in
Meaning and Anthropology, Basso and Selby,
eds. New York: Harper & Row
Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2006). "An Introduction
to Sociolinguistics". Blackwell.
Duranti, Alessandro. (1997). "Linguistic Anthropology".
Cambridge University Press.
Carbaugh, Donal. (1990). "Cultural Communication
and Intercultural Contact." LEA.
== External links ==
International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)
Journal of Pragmatics
"What is Pragmatics?" (eprint) by Shaozhong
Liu
European Communicative Strategies (ECSTRA),
a (wiki)project in comparative pragmatics
directed by Joachim Grzega.
