Linguistic Pragmatics Theory

A Linguistic Pragmatics Theory is a linguistic semantic theory that can systematically explain intended meaning (in linguistic utterances and gestures beyond their literal content).

• AKA: Pragmatic Theory, Theory of Language Use, Communicative Intention Theory.
• Context:
  • It can typically analyze Communicative Intention through contextual factors and social conventions.
  • It can typically explain Meaning Gap between semantic content and intended message.
  • It can typically address Contextual Dependence of utterance interpretation on speaker, hearer, and situational context.
  • It can typically model Inference Process through which hearers derive intended meaning from literal content.
  • It can typically account for Conversational Principle including cooperation, relevance, and informativeness.
  • ...
  • It can often describe Presupposition as background assumptions that must be satisfied for utterances to be felicitous.
  • It can often explain Implicature as implied meanings that can be inferred from utterances but are not explicitly stated.
  • It can often analyze Speech Act as linguistic actions that perform functions like promising, requesting, and asserting.
  • It can often examine Pragmatic Marker such as discourse particles, intonation patterns, and gestures that guide interpretation.
  • It can often study Politeness Strategy through which speakers mitigate face-threatening acts.
  • ...
  • It can range from being a Global Pragmatics Theory to being a Local Pragmatics Theory, depending on its interpretive scope.
  • It can range from being a Cognitive Pragmatics Theory to being a Social Pragmatics Theory, depending on its theoretical foundation.
  • It can range from being a Formalist Pragmatics Theory to being a Functionalist Pragmatics Theory, depending on its methodological approach.
  • It can range from being a Universal Pragmatics Theory to being a Culture-Specific Pragmatics Theory, depending on its cross-cultural application.
  • ...
  • It can suggest that Implicatures and Presuppositions depend on interlocutors and context and involve soft inference.
  • It can formalize Conversational Maxims including quality, quantity, relevance, and manner.
  • It can distinguish between Conventional Implicature arising from linguistic form and Conversational Implicature arising from contextual reasoning.
  • It can analyze Indirect Speech Act where surface form differs from communicative function.
  • ...
• Examples:
  • Linguistic Pragmatics Theory Approach Categories, such as:
    • Philosophical Linguistic Pragmatics Theorys, such as:
      • Gricean Pragmatics Theory for cooperative principle modeling.
      • Speech Act Theory for linguistic action classification.
      • Relevance Theory for cognitive effort optimization.
      • Neo-Gricean Theory for conversational implicature analysis.
    • Sociolinguistic Pragmatics Theorys, such as:
      • Politeness Theory for face-saving strategy explanation.
      • Accommodation Theory for contextual adaptation modeling.
      • Interactional Sociolinguistics for discourse strategy analysis.
      • Critical Discourse Analysis for power relation examination.
    • Cognitive Linguistic Pragmatics Theorys, such as:
      • Mental Model Theory for contextual representation building.
      • Experimental Pragmatics for inference process testing.
      • Cognitive Relevance Theory for cognitive effect maximization.
      • Accessibility Theory for referential processing modeling.
  • Linguistic Pragmatics Phenomena Categories, such as:
    • Implicature Theorys, such as:
      • Scalar Implicature Theory for quantity-based inference modeling.
      • Particularized Conversational Implicature Theory for context-specific inference analysis.
      • Conventional Implicature Theory for form-based inference explanation.
    • Presupposition Theorys, such as:
      • Semantic Presupposition Theory for truth condition analysis.
      • Pragmatic Presupposition Theory for common ground modeling.
      • Projection Theory for complex sentence presupposition explanation.
  • ...
• Counter-Examples:
  • Linguistic Semantic Theory, which focuses on literal meaning rather than intended meaning.
  • Syntactic Theory, which addresses grammatical structure rather than communicative function.
  • Formal Logic, which models truth-conditional content without contextual dependence.
  • Truth-Conditional Semantics, which analyzes propositions without social context.
  • Linguistic Descriptivism, which catalogs language use without intentional explanation.
• See: Discourse-level Analysis, Discourse Theory, Pragmatic Competence, Semantic Theory, Implicature, Presupposition, Speech Act, Context Sensitivity.

---

---

References

2009

• (Wikipedia, 2009) ⇒ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
  • Pragmatics is the study of the inherent or intended meaning that lies within spoken and written language as well as gestures. Pragmatics is also the study of how meaning changes often changes depending on its use, or the structural ambiguity in language. [1] The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. An utterance describing pragmatic function is described as metapragmatic.
  • Another perspective is that pragmatics deals with the way in which we reach our goals in communication. Suppose a person wanted to ask someone to stop smoking. This could be achieved by using several utterances. The person could simply say, 'Stop smoking, please!' which is a direct method and has clear semantic meaning. Alternatively, the person could say, 'Whew, this room could use an air purifier' which implies a similar meaning but is indirect and therefore requires pragmatic inference to derive the intended meaning.
  • Pragmatic awareness is regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of language learning, and comes only through experience.

2007

• (Potts, 2007) ⇒ Christopher Potts. (2007). “Pragmatics of Questions and Answers.] Lecture notes.
• Maxims
  • Quality Above all, be truthful!
  • Relevance And be relevant!
  • Quantity Within those bounds, be as informative as you can!
  • Manner And do it as clearly and concisely as possible!

2001

• (Beaver, 2001)
  • NOTES: calls formalization in this area “notoriously problematic”.

1999

• (Bach, 1999)
  • NOTES: Proposes that “it seems futile for linguists to seek a formal pragmatics”.

1987

• (Devitt & Sterelny, 1987)

1975

• (Grice, 1975)
  • NOTES: language is cooperative game between speaker and listener

196?

• (Grice, 196?) ⇒ H. Paul Grice (1960s)
  • proposed the construction of compact, general specifications for (rational) social interactions.

---