Pragmatics is a branch of philosophy that studies the way in which language is used and the ways in which we can make sense of what we hear, see or read. It is often considered to be distinct from semantics in that it takes into account the meaning of words, sentences and whole conversations as well as the context within which they are spoken or written. It also distinguishes itself from truth theory in that it focuses on practical outcomes and is not concerned with the question of what is true or false.
Pragmatism has many different subfields. There are formal and computational pragmatics; theoretical, applied and clinical pragmatics; game-theoretical and experimental pragmatics; intercultural and interlinguistic pragmatics and neuropragmatics. There is also a substantial literature on the history of pragmatism and its influence and applications in areas as diverse as ethics, medicine, social work, philosophy of science, law and religion.
Dewey’s pragmatists turned wholeheartedly to questions of social progress and were instrumental in the political activism of the Progressive Era. Their legacy lives on in liberal democratic politics today – not just as an electoral system but as a philosophical ideal of egalitarianism and open communication that should extend to civil society, workplaces and schools.
A fundamental tenet of pragmatism is that, while the meaning of an utterance can be determined from its literal content, it can only be understood if the listener knows what the speaker intends to communicate. The latter might mean nothing more than expressing the speaker’s general mood, for example ‘It is a beautiful day’. But the utterance might also be an attempt to establish a connection with the listener, for instance, a request for help or an offer of advice.
Pragmatists have always emphasised the role of the communicative intention as a supplement to conventional and literal meaning, and this has given rise to various pragmatic theories of interpretation including the speech act model of meaning, the theory of conversational implicature, and the idea of a pragmatic maxim. Despite these differences, all pragmatic theories share the view that there is always some kind of gap between what a speaker says and what is actually meant. If the gap is not filled, the resulting utterance will be empty and pointless (Austin 1962; Searle 1979).
The task of pragmatics is to bridge this gap in order to understand what the speaker means. This is accomplished by inferring the speaker’s intended meaning. For instance, if a speaker says ‘What a wonderful day!’ sincerely, it is reasonable to assume that they mean the sky is clear and sunny. But if the utterance is ironic, the meaning is less certain.
Thus, the pragmatic maxim – or pragmatism – enables us to recognise that an empty metaphysical dispute is taking place, and that it is necessary to move on to more productive issues. William James formulated this as a method for settling metaphysical disputes, arguing that unless some ‘practical difference’ would follow from either of two alternative interpretations of an event or a claim, the dispute is idle.