Related Fields

There is considerable overlap between pragmatics and sociolinguistics, since both share an interest in linguistic meaning as determined by usage in a speech community. However, sociolinguists tend to be more interested in variations in language within such communities.

Pragmatics helps anthropologists relate elements of language to broader social phenomena; it thus pervades the field of linguistic anthropology. Because pragmatics describes generally the forces in play for a given utterance, it includes the study of power, gender, race, identity, and their interactions with individual speech acts. For example, the study of code switching directly relates to pragmatics, since a switch in code effects a shift in pragmatic force [6].

According to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to understand the relationship between signs and their users, while semantics tends to focus on the actual objects or ideas to which a word refers, and syntax (or "syntactics") examines relationships among signs or symbols. Semantics is the literal meaning of an idea whereas pragmatics is the implied meaning of the given idea.

Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J. L. Austin and further developed by J. Searle, centers around the idea of the performative, a type of utterance that performs the very action it describes. Speech Act Theory's examination of illocutionary acts has many of the same goals as pragmatics, as outlined above.

Criticisms of Pragmatics

Some of the criticisms directed at pragmatics include these:

• It does not have a clear-cut focus.

• Its principles are vague and fuzzy.

• It is redundant – semantics already covers the territory adequately.

In defending pragmatics we can say that:

• The study of speech acts has illuminated social language interactions.

• It covers things that semantics (hitherto) has overlooked.

• It can help inform strategies for teaching language.

• It has given new insights into understanding literature.

• The theory of the cooperative principle and politeness principle have provided insights into person-to-person interactions.

“Main logical interconnections”

Entailment

In pragmatics (linguistics), entailment is the relationship between two sentences where the truth of one (A) requires the truth of the other (B).

For example, the sentence (A) The president was assassinated. entails (B) The president is dead.

Entailment differs from implicature, where the truth of one (A) suggests the truth of the other (B), but does not require it.

For example, the sentence (A) Mary had a baby and (B) got married implicates that (A) she had a baby before (B) the wedding, but this is cancellable by adding -- not necessarily in that order. Entailments are not cancellable.

Entailment also differs from presupposition in that in presupposition, the truth of what one is presupposing is taken for granted.

Task: make 5 examples of your own to illustrate entailments.