I.2 - DEFINITION OF PRAGMATICS
Anglo-American linguistics and philosophy define pragmatics,
in its simplest terms, as the study of language use. But, this definition is
not satisfactory since language use embraces many parameters as various as each
of them deserves a particular field of study. The diversity of these fields
leads to miscellaneous definitions that we are going to look into now.
Levinson (1983) proposes some possible definitions of
pragmatics.
The lesser satisfactory (but possible) definition of
pragmatics is as follows: «Pragmatics is the study of those principles
that will account for why a certain set of sentences are anomalous». In
this sense, a sentence like «I am dead» would be incorrect because
there is no usual social context where someone would say «I am dead»,
for if I am dead I cannot say it. The definition is unsatisfactory because this
pragmatic anomaly is presupposed rather than explained.
Another unsatisfactory definition is: «Pragmatics is the
study of language from a functional perspective.» That definition includes
any aspect that contributes to the production of language, that is,
non-linguistic pressures and causes. It includes psycholinguistics, and
sociolinguistics; so it is too large.
A more limited scope of pragmatics needs to be set. A possible
definition might be, as Katz and Fodor quoted (in Levinson (1983))
«Pragmatics is concerned solely with performance principles of language
use». This definition implies that pragmatics is not concerned with the
description of linguistic structure but with the context of language use. It
does not refer to irony or understatement, where the context is quite opposed
to the use. The problem is that, if the definition wants to depart from the
description of linguistic structure, it will fail to analyze the aspects of
linguistic structure which directly encode features of the context.
Levinson (1983) states that any definition of pragmatics must
include the study of deixis, implicatures, presupposition and speech acts. He
defines pragmatics as «the study of deixis (at least in part),
implicature, presupposition, speech acts and aspects of discourse
structure». In fact, the definition unfolds the subject matter of
pragmatics.
McCarthy (1991:2) defines pragmatics as «the study of how
meaning is created in context». This means that, to understand the meaning
of an utterance one should refer to the context. It presupposes that the hearer
and the speaker are in the same context. Richards et al. (1985:225) give the
scope of pragmatics:
«Pragmatics
includes study of:
(a) how the interpretation and use of utterances
depend on knowledge of the real world
(b) how speakers use and understand speech acts
(c) how the structure of sentences is influenced by
the relationship between the speaker and the
hearer»
According to Cook (1989:157) pragmatics is «the study of
how the meaning of discourse is created in particular contexts for particular
senders and receivers». Discourse being the «stretches of language
perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive» (P. 156), and context
being the «social and physical world which interacts with text to create
discourse». (P.156). Context includes the participants to discourse
production, the surroundings, the previous situation, etc..
In light of these definitions, pragmatics can be defined as
the study of language used in communication. That is, the study of language
which is concerned with the adaptation of symbolic expressions to the
referential, situational, actional and interpersonal context.
Our next point will deal with context.
| 
