Pragmatics is the study of the context of language use and how it affects meaning. It differs from semantics, which studies the actual objects or ideas that a word denotes, and syntax, which examines the relationships among signs or symbols. Different theorists focus on different aspects of pragmatics. For example, relevance theory views pragmatics as the study of hearer comprehension processes, while others view it as the more general study of what is conveyed beyond an utterance itself.
A key component of pragmatics is the notion of a speaker’s communicative intention. A speaker’s intentions are often not completely clear. Pragmatics focuses on the ways that speakers communicate to others their intent, which includes what they intend to achieve and the consequences of that intention. It also considers how the listeners may interpret the speaker’s intentions. This includes addressing issues of ambiguity, reference, and truth.
Traditionally, scholars have divided the study of pragmatics into two broad areas. One is called near-side pragmatics and the other is far-side pragmatics. The near-side approach to pragmatics looks at the properties of an utterance and what it means, while the far-side perspective considers the implications of an utterance and how they might influence other actions or events.
In practice, the distinction between the two approaches is fuzzy. It is likely that most pragmatic studies fall into either the near-side or the far-side category, with a few exceptions. For example, the question of whether a taboo statement is appropriate in a particular culture falls within the domain of both near-side and far-side pragmatics.
One of the most important differences between the near-side and far-side models of pragmatics is how they handle context. The classic approach, following Frege, views context as a set of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors that might influence an utterance’s relevance or interpretation. In contrast, more recent developments in pragmatics, such as relevance theory and the illocutionary force model, treat contextual elements as an integral part of the utterance itself and are concerned with the relationship between the utterance’s illlocutionary force and its conventional meaning.
Other differences between the near-side and far-side perspectives on pragmatics include how the relevant elements of an utterance are determined. For example, the illlocutionary force of the phrase ‘you have two sons’ is that the utterance implies that the speaker has only two children. This is a property that both the near-side and far-side models would agree upon, although they might not agree on how the illlocutionary force of the utterance is determined.
Regardless of how a teacher views pragmatics, it is important to teach it. An understanding of the concepts and their application can help students better understand a speaker’s communication skills and the effects of context on meaning. Teachers might incorporate information on pragmatics into existing lesson plans, or they might create new lessons that address particular language functions such as greetings, requests, complaints, invitations, apologies, and so forth. Lesson activities might incorporate cultural differences as well.