Pragmatics

موضوع: Pragmatics الجمعة مايو 27, 2011 9:59 pm

Introduction

This guide is written for students who are following GCE Advanced level
(AS and A2) syllabuses in English Language. This resource may also be of
general interest to language students on university degree courses,
trainee teachers and anyone with a general interest in language science.

If you are unsure whether to spend time finding out about this subject,
you might like to jump straight to the brief section on pragmatics for
exam students.

On this page I use red type for emphasis. Brown type is used where
italics would appear in print (in this screen font, italic looks like
this, and is unkind on most readers). Headings have their own
hierarchical logic, too:

What is pragmatics?
Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. It
seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain
sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics. As a field of
language study, pragmatics is fairly new. Its origins lie in philosophy
of language and the American philosophical school of pragmatism. As a
discipline within language science, its roots lie in the work of
(Herbert) Paul Grice on conversational implicature and the cooperative
principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff
Leech on politeness.

We can illustrate how pragmatics works by an example from association
football (and other field sports). It sometimes happens that a team-mate
will shout at me: “Man on!” Semantic analysis can only go so far with
this phrase.

* For example, it can elicit different lexical meanings of the noun
“man” (mankind or the human race, an individual person, a male person
specifically) and the preposition “on” (on top of, above, or other
relationships as in “on fire”, “on heat”, “on duty”, “on the fiddle” or
“on the telly”).
* And it can also explain structural meaning, and account for the
way this phrase works in longer sequences such as the “first man on the
moon”, “a man on the run” or “the man on top of the Clapham omnibus”.

None of this explains the meaning in the context of the football game.
This is very complex, but perhaps includes at least the following
elements:

* My team-mate has seen another player's movement, and thinks that I
have either not seen it, or have not responded to it appropriately.
* My team-mate wants me to know that I am likely to be tackled or impeded in some way.
* My team-mate wants me to respond appropriately, as by shielding
the ball, passing it to an unmarked player, laying it off for another
team-mate and so on.
* My team-mate has an immediate concern for me, but this is really
subordinated to a more far-sighted desire for me, as a player on his
team, to protect the ball or retain possession, as this will make our
team more likely to gain an advantage.
* My team-mate understands that my opponent will also hear the
warning, but thinks that his hearing it will not harm our team's chances
as much as my not being aware of the approaching player.
* My team-mate foresees that I may rebuke him (and the other players
on our team collectively) if no-one, from a better vantage point,
alerts me to the danger.

If this is right (or even part of it), it is clear that my team-mate
could not, in the time available, (that is, before the opponent tackles
me) communicate this information in the explicit manner above. But it
also relies on my knowing the methods of language interchange in
football. “Man on” is an established form of warning. For all I know,
professional players may have their own covert forms, as when they
signal a routine at a free kick, corner or throw-in, by calling a number
or other code word.

Also, though my team-mate is giving me information, in the context of
the game, he is chiefly concerned about my taking the right action. If
response to the alert becomes like a conditioned reflex (I hear the
warning and at once lay the ball off or pass), then my contribution to
the team effort will be improved. (Reflection on how I play the game is
fine after the match, but not helpful at moments when I have to take
action.) Note also, that though I have assumed this to be in a game
played by men, the phrase “Man on” is used equally in mixed-gender and
women's sports - I have heard it frequently in games of field hockey,
where the “Man” about to be “on” was a female player. “Woman on” would
be inefficient (extra syllable and a difficult intial “w” sound), and
might even lead the uncritical player to worry less about the
approaching tackle - though probably not more than once.

We use language all the time to make things happen. We ask someone to
pass the salt or marry us - not, usually at the same time. We order a
pizza or make a dental appointment. Speech acts include asking for a
glass of beer, promising to drink the beer, threatening to drink more
beer, ordering someone else to drink some beer, and so on. Some special
people can do extraordinary things with words, like baptizing a baby,
declaring war, awarding a penalty kick to Arsenal FC or sentencing a
convict.

Linguists have called these things “speech acts” - and developed a
theory (called, unsurprisingly, “speech act theory”) to explain how they
work. Some of this is rooted in common sense and stating the obvious -
as with felicity conditions. These explain that merely saying the words
does not accomplish the act. Judges (unless they are also referees)
cannot award penalty kicks to Arsenal, and football referees (unless
they are also heads of state) cannot declare war.

Speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, but is perhaps
currently the most important established part of the subject.
Contemporary debate in pragmatics often focuses on its relations with
semantics. Since semantics is the study of meaning in language, why add a
new field of study to look at meaning from a novel viewpoint?

This is an elementary confusion. Clearly linguists could develop a model
of semantics that included pragmatics. Or they could produce a model
for each, which allows for some exploration and explanation of the
boundary between them - but distinguishes them as in some way different
kinds of activity. However, there is a consensus view that pragmatics as
a separate study is necessary because it explains meanings that
semantics overlooks.

What does pragmatics include?
The lack of a clear consensus appears in the way that no two published
accounts list the same categories of pragmatics in quite the same order.
But among the things you should know about are:

Speech act theory
Felicity conditions
Conversational implicature
The cooperative principle
Conversational maxims
Relevance
Politeness
Phatic tokens
Deixis
This guide contains some explanation of all of these, as well as related
or peripheral subjects. Many of them break down further into their own
sub-categories, as with the different kinds of speech acts that
linguists have usefully distinguished.

Criticisms of pragmatics
Some of the criticisms directed at pragmatics include these:

It does not have a clear-cut focus
Its principles are vague and fuzzy
It is redundant - semantics already covers the territory adequately

In defending pragmatics we can say that:

The study of speech acts has illuminated social language interactions
It covers things that semantics (hitherto) has overlooked
It can help inform strategies for teaching language
It has given new insights into understanding literature
The theories of the cooperative principle and politeness principle
have provided insights into person-to-person interactions

» A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics
» Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics