Pragmatic is an adjective that refers to people or ideas that are guided by practical consequences rather than by dogma or theory. It also means realistic and sensible, and can be a positive trait in business or politics. Pragmatic is a term that is related to the philosophical concept of pragmatism, which argues that practical outcomes are the best guide to action rather than abstract concepts or theories.
Pragmatists believe that people can be more productive if they focus on solving problems and drawing practical lessons from past events than if they spend time and energy trying to find the perfect solution to any given problem. In addition, pragmatic people are more likely to take concrete steps to reach their goals than if they rely on theories and dogma.
In linguistics, the study of pragmatics involves how context influences meaning. The field is often considered to be a subfield of semantics, syntax, and semiotics. Pragmatics differs from other areas of linguistics because it focuses on nonliteral meaning and how a speaker’s intentions and beliefs affect the use of language. It also evaluates the relationship between speakers and listeners, which is an important factor in communication.
One of the main theories in pragmatics is called relevance theory, developed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. This theory, inspired by Grice’s ideas about implicature, explains that a speaker’s every utterance conveys enough relevant information for the addressee to understand the meaning of the entire discourse. The relevance of an utterance can be influenced by many factors, including the identity of the speaker, the particular circumstances of its utterance, the meanings that it evokes in other people, and the emotions that are being expressed.
Another major pragmatic theory is utterance-mapping, which involves looking at the entire flow of an utterance to see if it makes sense in context. This includes the whole set of possible causes and effects that are generated by an utterance, which can be determined by looking at what the speaker has already said in the conversation as well as who they have been talking to, where they have been, and what other things they have said.
Some theorists have made a distinction between what they call “near-side” and “far-side” pragmatics. Near-side pragmatics focuses on the nature of facts that are needed to determine what an utterance means, including resolution of ambiguity and vagueness, the reference of proper names, indexicals and demonstratives, and anaphors. Far-side pragmatics, on the other hand, looks at how an utterance is interpreted, and includes the role of assumptions in that interpretation. For example, when someone asks you how you are doing, it is usually not a good idea to respond by going into detail about all of your medical and personal details that might have a bearing on how you are feeling on any given day. Instead, you should probably say something like, “Fine, thanks.” This would be a pragmatic response that reflects the fact that you are not responding to a literal question about your health status.