Pragmatics is a sub field of linguistics which
developed in the late 1970’s, even though
references to pragmatics are found in philosophy since the works of Charles
Morris (1938). Morris work on semiotics marked the development of the concept
of pragmatics (Osisanwo 2003: 56). He identified pragmatics as one of the three
branches of semiotics and defined pragmatics as “the study of the relation of
signs to the interpreters”. ‘Pragmaticus’ in Latin and ‘pragmaticos’ in Greek
are both referred to as “invisible” meaning.
Pragmatics gained prominence as a
reaction to the polemics, from the inadequacies of semiotics, semantics and sociolinguistics
in handling meaning related issues ( Thomas 1995, Abram 1998, Levinson 1983,
Lyons 1981, Adegbija 1999: 189). According to Morris (1938: 108) pragmatic
deals with the “biotic aspects osemiosis, that is with all the psychological,
biological and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning of signs”.
Continuing Morris says that pragmatics is the scientific study of the
properties of signaling systems, whether natural or artificial. This was a bold
step in trying to expand the difference between mainstream semiotics and
linguistics. Thus for him, while pragmatics studies the relations of signs to
interpreters, semantics studies the relations of signs to the objects to which
the signs are applicable.
To align with the foregoing, Akmajian
(1979-267) captures pragmatics as the study of language use and linguistic
communication; while Leech (1983: X) says that pragmatics can be defined as
“the study of how utterances have meaning in situation”.
Continuing on the concept of pragmatics, Kempson (1975:84) sates
that pragmatics is a theory which seeks to characterize how speakers use the
sentences of language to effect successful communication.
Lawal (2003:150) defines
pragmatics as the study of how context influences our interpretation of
utterances, that is, the linguistics of utterances. In the same vein Adegbija(1983)
sees pragmatics as the study of language use in particular communication
contexts and situations.
Leech and Short (1981: 290) see pragmatics as “the
investigation into that aspect of meaning which is derived not from the formal
properties of words, but from the way in which utterances are used and how they
relate to the context in which they are uttered”. In another sole instance, Leech
(1983:6) opines that pragmatics is “the study of meaning in relation to speech
and situation. The speech situation enables the speaker to use language to
achieve a particular effect on the mind of the hearer”. From Leech’s view, the
purpose of speech is usually goal oriented. This goal is usually the meaning
which the speaker or writer intends to communicate and the desired effect which
the speech is expected to have on the hearer or reader.
In
her work, Semantics and Pragmatic Difficulties and Semantic Pragmatic Language
Disorder, Bowen (2001) sees pragmatics as the area of language function
that embraces the use of language in social context (knowing what to say, how to
say, and when to say it – and how to “be” with other people). The study of
pragmatics, therefore, aims at enlarging the scope of enquiring into the true
nature of social meaning and their effects in various situations.
Allan (1986) believes that it is the study of
interactive meaning. Barton (1990) avers that it is, “the meaning that consists
of interpretation within context” Stalnaker (1978) opines that it is “the study
of linguistics acts and contexts in which they are performed.”
According to Spencer-Oatey
and Zegarec (2002: 74) pragmatics is concerned “with the interrelationship
between language form, communicated messages and language user”. In the same
vein, Yule (1996:127) believes that pragmatics is “the study of intended
speakers meaning”. It is “in many ways …. the study of invisible meaning or how
we recognize what is meant even when it isn’t actually said (or written)”. In a
more recent view Yule (2003:3) observes that, “pragmatics is concerned with the
study of meaning as communicated by the speaker (or writer) and interpreted by
a listener (or reader)”.
Kuhu
(1964) cited in Mey (2001: 4) says that pragmatics is a “paradigm shift” from
syntactic rules and semantics to language use in contexts. However , it appears
that pragmatics is not a shift from syntax and semantics because the structure
and literal meaning of words map onto contextual meaning which pragmatics
studies. In a related development, Levinson (1983:9) believes that the study of
pragmatics is the study of those aspects of the relationship between language
and context which are relevant to the writing of grammar. In this definition,
interest is mainly on the interrelation of language and principles of language
use that are context dependent.
Mey
(2001:4) opines that pragmatics incorporates “extra-syntactic and extra
linguistic factors”. He defines pragmatics as linguistic study that “deals with
language users in their social context”. Continuing, she asserts that, “pragmatics
studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the
conditions of society”. From the fore going we observe that none of the
definitions include non-verbal aspects of language although they are
presupposed in Mey’s view. Pragmatics encompasses a lot of concepts which may
not be adequately accounted for in a definition. According to David Crystal, “pragmatics studies the factors
that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effect of our
choice on others”.
Thomas (1995) noted that
the pioneers in the area of pragmatics (like Charles Morris, Rudolph Carnap,
Charles Peirce) reacted against “an approach to linguistics which was strongly
biased towards meaning in use”. According to her, there are two approaches to
the study of pragmatics. They are the study according to “use” and “context”.
Thomas also names levels of meaning in language use as abstract meaning and
utterance meaning (1995:2).
Lending credence to the position above, Salamani
– Nodoushan (1995) noted that pragmatics was borne out of the,
abstractions
of philosophy rather than of the descriptive needs of linguistics. This
accounts in part for the difficulties which were later experienced by
linguistics when they tried to apply pragmatic models to the analysis of
stretches of naturally occurring discourses.….. Pragmatics has been an area
between semantics, sociolinguistics and extra linguistics context.
Leech (1983:5-7) and Wierbicks (1991:15-19)
supported this by stating that the boundaries between pragmatics and other
areas have not been determined precisely.
Escandell
– Vidal (2002) avers that the use of language cannot be characterized in terms
of grammar alone and that is why a complementary theory is needed to account
for linguistic performance, and this theory is what is known as pragmatics. He
identifies two ways of doing pragmatics as; the socio-cultural approaches
and the cognitive approaches. Socio-cultural approaches have the task to
identify and characterize the norms that underlie the spontaneous use of
language of a given social group. Cognitive pragmatic approach on the other
hand represent a different way of doing pragmatics, which aims at identifying
principles that govern different aspects
of use and understanding of language. He concludes that Grice is a precursor of
cognitive approach.
In
the light of the foregoing, pragmatics can be defined as a systematic way of
explaining language use in context. It seeks to explain aspects of meaning
which cannot be found in ordinary sense of words.
Central to the development of pragmatics as a
sub discipline of linguistics are Austin’s
(1962) Speech Act Theory and Grice (1975) Theory of conversational implicature.