Unlike formal semantics which focuses on the meaning of words, pragmatics is concerned with the linguistic act of uttering. This is not a purely semantic or analytic approach; pragmatics is also concerned with the context in which the words are spoken and the listener’s vantage point. This is the nexus of linguistic interaction.
The linguistic act of uttering can be viewed as the slot gacor proverbial passing of salt, but pragmatics goes far beyond that to provide a deeper insight into the relationship between speakers and the interpretation of their words. This is the reason that pragmatics has a large place in language studies. It provides a theoretical framework that enables us to understand the nature of language, the use of language, and the interplay between linguistic and contextual features. The linguistic act is augmented by ampliative inference, a deductive and sometimes inductive technique that enables us to make inferences beyond the most basic facts.
The concept of ‘what is said’ has been replaced by two concepts: the content and the speaker’s plan. The content is a concept that relates to what is actually said, while the speaker’s plan focuses on the hierarchy of intentions. The speaker’s plan is also a conceptual feat, as it combines the meaning of words and the context of a sentence. The speaker’s plan may also be a conceit that requires us to recognize that a speaker is a speaker, or that a speaker’s intention can be recognised.
The simplest example of the speaker’s plan is a sentence such as “I’m not really sure I’m talking to you.” It is not an utterance, but a conceit that the speaker is speaking to you. It is the shortest and most direct way to express the speaker’s intention.
Semantics and ambiguity theory are also important branches of pragmatics. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, phrases, and sentence structures, while ambiguity theory is a study of the relationship between ambiguous sign and interpreter. Semantics may be a deductive or analytic theory, while ambiguity theory tries to identify the best way to understand the relationship between ambiguous sign and interpreter.
The pragmatic sex of the ‘best’ utterance is the one which contains the most information. In other words, speaking more information is not necessarily better than giving less information. It may also be the case that speaking the best utterance is not the most accurate way to convey your intentions, but rather, a more pragmatic one.
The semantics of the ‘best’ utterance may be the most important linguistic act, but it does not stand alone. It must be accompanied by a pragmatic information that is relevant to the hearer’s interpretation of the speaker’s meaning.
The best utterance is the one that contains the most information, but it is also the one that is most relevant to the context in which the utterance is said. The best utterance is the one that best reflects the utterer’s intentions and the context of the speech act.