Pragmatic is the study of what people really mean when they use language. It also focuses on how we communicate and what effect our actions have on other people. Pragmatics is often confused with semantics and syntax but it’s important to note that these are not the same things.
The pragmatists understand that knowing the world is inseparable from agency within it and they therefore develop an original a posteriori epistemology. The pragmatist tradition has attracted a diverse range of interpretations. These include the idea that philosophical claims should be tested via scientific experiment, the notion that knowledge consists of transacting with rather than representing nature and the claim that articulated language rests on a deep bed of human practices that can never be fully’made explicit’.
Classical pragmatism’s progressive social ideals live on in many quarters. For example, Cornel West’s prophetic pragmatism draws on both Christian and Marxist thought to advance an understanding of American democracy (West 2000). Other liberatory projects such as those in feminism, ecology and Native American philosophy have been influenced by pragmatism (Alexander 2013, Seigfried 1996).
In the field of linguistic pragmatics, there has been much work devoted to testing empirical hypotheses that emerge from the study of communication and meaning. However, a great deal of this research neglects to consider the broader pragmatic context in which these communicative acts occur. In particular, it ignores the fact that people’s real-time production and processing of language is constantly constrained by pragmatic factors.
This article will argue that experimental pragmatics should pay greater attention to these contextual constraints and the various bodily, linguistic and situational factors that influence meaning making in different communicative contexts. It will further suggest that a pragmatic approach to the understanding of language requires that we avoid simplistic assumptions about the nature of language and instead recognise the complex ways in which it is used in everyday life.
Achieving results through a practical and flexible approach. This means considering the risks and opportunities, planning for the future and taking steps to overcome barriers. It also means being open to new ideas and approaches and not becoming stuck with the tried-and-true. Pragmatic thinking should encourage innovation and exploration but this is often stifled by an overuse of the word “pragmatic.”
When abused, the term ‘pragmatic’ is associated with eliminating necessary actions to achieve a project delivery date or not challenging the status quo. This is a clear mis-use of the term that will stifle creativity and innovation. True pragmatism should be forward-thinking and focus on a balance between practicality and forward-thinking, leveraging lessons learned and taking a risk-based approach to project management. This should lead to an effective plan that addresses the project’s goals and objectives, is realistic and based on the realities of the business environment. It should also support a healthy level of conflict that is focused on uncovering innovative ideas and solutions that will improve the outcome for all stakeholders. For more information see the full article.