Pragmatic is the study of language use in context. It has traditionally been distinguished from linguistic semantics (the meaning of a sentence) and syntax (word order). It is also distinct from semiotics, the study of symbols. Some philosophers have viewed pragmatics as a separate branch of philosophy, while others see it as part of the more general philosophical study of language.
The distinction between pragmatics and semantics is a fundamental one in the philosophy of language, and it has been debated since Frege’s work on word meaning in 1892. Semantics focuses on the conventional meanings of words and how those meanings can be used, whereas pragmatics is more concerned with the way that words are used in particular contexts.
Many of the issues that arise in pragmatics are similar to those that can be found in other areas of philosophy, such as semiotics and the philosophy of language. In fact, the two fields are often referred to together as the “philosophical pragmatics” or “linguistic pragmatics.”
Pragmatics is a relatively new field of research in language studies, and as such, its exact definition remains somewhat controversial. Some researchers define pragmatics as a study of the interaction between speakers and listeners in natural language communication. Others see it as a subset of linguistic semantics, with the focus being on conversational implicatures and other unspoken meanings in speech. Still others consider it a broader concept that includes both semantics and syntax.
For many people, the term ‘pragmatic’ is synonymous with practical. Being pragmatic is about choosing the best solution based on available information. It can also mean being willing to change one’s ideals if they prove unworkable in the real world. People who are not pragmatic can end up in a rut, with one set of ideas as self-evident truths that never get challenged or replaced by another set of ideals.
The main issue in defining pragmatics is that different theorists focus on different properties of utterances. ‘Near-side pragmatics’ is concerned with the nature of certain facts relevant to determining what is said, such as resolution of ambiguity and vagueness, reference, indexicals and demonstratives, and anaphors. This sort of pragmatics is often viewed as the ‘classic’ pragmatics.
‘Far-side pragmatics’, on the other hand, focuses on what happens beyond the expressions in the utterance itself. This is the sort of pragmatics that has been most heavily influenced by the Relevance Theory of Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. It is often viewed as a more psychologically-oriented pragmatics.
The debate between near-side and far-side pragmatics is a key point in the development of pragmatics, and it will be an ongoing theme in the field’s history. Some scholars are currently trying to find a unification of these two approaches, with the goal being to have a single view that encompasses all of the important aspects of pragmatics. This approach, called’semantic pragmatics’ or’metasemantics’, is often seen as a viable alternative to the traditional approaches to pragmatics. It may be the next step in the evolution of the field.