There are different definitions of pragmatics given by different pragmaticians, but they all share the basic idea that pragmatics is 'the study of language in use' (Verschueren, 1999:1), or 'the science of language in relation to its users' (Mey, 1993:5). As you can notice, pragmatics studies the way in which people use language (i 141e49b n different contexts). Dealing with issues of language use, pragmatics also focuses on how people create 'meaningful' communication, or, 'meaning in interaction' (Thomas, 1995). For a better understanding of the relation between pragmatics and other disciplines of linguistics, we will look at Verschueren's (1999) view on the place of pragmatics within the field of linguistics.
Linguistics, according to Verschueren (1999:1-5), is traditionally divided into component disciplines, such as phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Each of them is related to a specific unit of analysis. Thus, phonetics and phonology deal with speech sounds. Phonetics identifies constituent parts of a continuous stream of sound and focuses either on the physical properties of the sounds, or on their manner of production, whereas the basic unit of analysis for phonology is the 'phoneme'. Morphology investigates 'morphemes' the minimal linguistic signs in the sense that they are the minimal units carrying a conventional meaning or contributing to the meaning of larger units, and the ways in which they combine to form words. Syntax studies sentence formation processes in accordance with language-specific rules, starting from words or 'lexical items'. Semantics explores the meaning of linguistic units, typically at the level of words (lexical semantics) or at the level of sentences or more complex structures.
The question that we ask ourselves is 'What do all these branches have in common?' According to Verschueren (1999:2), they share a focus on language resources (the ingredients that make up a language as a tool that people use for expressive and communicative purposes). Units of analysis are identified, thus leading to a manageable division of labour.
As implied in the above definition, pragmatics cannot be identified with a specific unit of analysis. Then what is pragmatics? The linguistic phenomena to be studied from the point of view of their usage can be situated at any level of structure. The question pragmatics asks is: How are the language resources used? Thus, in Verschueren's view (1999), pragmatics is not an additional component of a theory of language, but it offers a different perspective.
There are no linguistic phenomena, at any level of structure that a pragmatic perspective can afford to ignore:
EXAMPLES:
a. The level of speech sounds: Most speakers of languages who have grown up with a local dialect, for example people born in villages in Banat region, but who were socialised into the use of a standard variety through formal education, will find that the Romanian they use sounds quite different depending on whether they are in their professional context or speaking to their parents.
b. The level of morphemes and words: there are pragmatic restrictions on and implications of aspects of derivational morphology. Consider the derivational relationship between pleasant and unpleasant or kind and unkind. The reason why this relationship is not reversed, with a basic lexeme meaning "unpleasant" from which a word meaning "pleasant" would be derived by means of the negative prefix, is related to a system of social norms which emphasises the need for being pleasant and kind with people.
c. Grammatical choices of morhemes are also subject to pragmatic constraints. Consider the recent changes in socio-political awareness which led to the use of he/she instead of the generic he.
TASK: THINK OF OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE SAME KIND.
d. At the level of syntax: the same state of affairs can be described by means of very different syntactic structures:
Mary broke the glass
The glass was broken by Mary
The glass was broken
The glass got broken.
Note for example (cf. Verschueren, 1999:5), the progressive reduction of emphasis on the person responsible for the breaking of the glass, which starts with the full passive formula that still includes mention of the agent (Mary), and which ends with a formula that may even suggest complete absence of (or ignorance about) any responsibility.
Also note another usage aspect, that involved in the speaker's assessment of whether it is more relevant to the hearer to be told something about Mary (in which case the sentence starts with Mary) or about the glass (in which case The glass will be the subject).
e. At the level of word meaning (lexical semantics), more than what would be regarded as 'dictionary meaning' has to be taken into account as soon as a word gets used. Many words cannot be understood unless aspects of world knowledge are invoked.
For example (Verschueren, 1999:5), understanding the meaning of topless district requires 'knowledge about city areas with high concentration of establishments for (predominantly male) entertainment where scantly dressed hostesses or performers are the main attraction'.
Mental midwives 'which appears in a newspaper headline, cannot be understood until after reading the article, which describes patients in a mental hospital (a term which requires institutional knowledge) assisting a fellow patient when giving birth.'
|
