Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which 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, and linguistics.
[1]
It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g.
grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,
knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on.[2] 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.[1] The ability to understand
another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. Pragmatic awareness is
regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of language learning, and, though it can be
taught, often comes only through experience.[citation needed]
Structural ambiguity
The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity
of the speaker, and their intent, it is not possible to infer the meaning with confidence. For
example:
It could mean you have green ambient lighting.

Or that you have a green light while driving your car.
Or it could be indicating that you can go ahead with the project.
Or that your body has a green glow.
Or that you have in your possession 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.[6] 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 closer 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 meaning intrinsically; there is not a
meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. The
cat sat on the mat is a sentence of English; if you say to your sister on Tuesday afternoon: "The
cat sat on the mat", this is an example of an utterance. Thus, there is no such thing as a sentence,
term, expression or word symbolically representing a single true meaning; it is underspecified
(which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. The meaning of an utterance, on the
other hand, is inferred based on linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the non-linguistic
context of the utterance (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). In
mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable".
The ambiguity with words shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited.
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: omnivorous, a mammal
If someone were to say that a tiger is an omnivorous 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 by
A 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.""
Definition
Pragmatics is the study of the aspects of meaning and language use that are dependent on
the speaker, the addressee and other features of the context of utterance, such as the
following:
The effect that the following have on the speakers choice of expression and the
addressees interpretation of an utterance:
o Context of utterance
o Generally observed principles of communication
o The goals of the speaker
Programmatic concerns, such as
o the treatment of given versus new information, including presupposition
o deixis
o speech acts, especially illocutionary acts
o implicature, and
o
the relations of meaning or function between portions of discourse (see

interpropositional relation) or turns of conversation (see conversation
analysis).
Generic
Pragmatics is a kind of
What is meaning and pragmatic function?

Pragmatics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to

meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in

It could mean you have green ambient lighting.

the relations of meaning or function between portions of discourse (see

What is meaning and pragmatic function?

You might also like