PRAGMATICS PROSPECTUS
(A Complete Prospectus of Pragmatics (Foundational to Contemporary)
Riaz Laghari
Lecturer in English, NUML, Islamabad
I. Foundations and Scope of Pragmatics
1. Defining Pragmatics
Pragmatics
Study of meaning in context
Concerned with speaker intention, listener inference, and situational factors
Explains how more is communicated than is linguistically encoded
Pragmatics vs. Semantics vs. Syntax
Syntax
Formal structure of sentences
Rule-governed arrangement of linguistic units
Context-independent
Concerned with well-formedness
Semantics
Conventional, coded meaning
Truth-conditional content
Sentence-level meaning
Stable across contexts (minimalist view)
Pragmatics
Context-dependent meaning
Non-truth-conditional aspects
Utterance-level interpretation
Explains variability of meaning across situations
Interface Insight
Syntax provides form
Semantics provides encoded meaning
Pragmatics provides interpreted meaning
Meaning-in-Use vs. Meaning-in-System
Meaning-in-System
Abstract linguistic meaning
Stored in the mental lexicon
Independent of speaker intentions
Domain of semantics
Meaning-in-Use
Meaning as actually communicated
Dependent on context, goals, assumptions
Includes implicature, presupposition, inference
Core concern of pragmatics
Key Distinction
Language as code vs. language as action
Speaker Meaning vs. Sentence Meaning
Sentence Meaning
Literal meaning encoded by linguistic form
Shared by all competent speakers
Context-neutral
Semantically determined
Speaker Meaning
What the speaker intends to convey
May diverge from literal meaning
Context-sensitive
Inferentially recovered by the hearer
Classic Insight (Grice)
Communication succeeds when speaker meaning is recognized, not merely decoded
Utterance Meaning vs. Propositional Content
Propositional Content
Abstract truth-evaluable core
What can be true or false
Often incomplete or underspecified
Utterance Meaning
Propositional content + pragmatic enrichment
Includes:
Reference resolution
Temporal/spatial anchoring
Implicatures
Attitudinal meaning
Key Point
Propositions do not communicate on their own
Utterances do
Summary Distinctions
Syntax → structure
Semantics → coded meaning
Pragmatics → inferred meaning
Sentence meaning → linguistic
Speaker meaning → intentional
Meaning-in-system → abstract
Meaning-in-use → contextual
Propositional content → minimal
Utterance meaning → enriched
2. Historical Development of Pragmatics
Logical Positivism & Early Philosophy of Language
Meaning equated with verification conditions
Focus on truth, reference, and logical form
Language treated as a formal system
Context, intention, and use largely excluded
Ideal language philosophy (Frege, Russell, early Wittgenstein)
Ordinary language viewed as defective or vague
Pragmatic phenomena considered philosophically irrelevant
Consequence
Non-literal meaning marginalized
Implicit communication theoretically invisible
Ordinary Language Philosophy (Turning Point)
Shift from ideal to ordinary language
Language analyzed as used in everyday life
Meaning tied to use (later Wittgenstein)
Speech acts foregrounded
Contextual variation recognized
Key Insight
Understanding meaning requires understanding how utterances function
Bar-Hillel and the “Wastebasket” Critique
Pragmatics defined negatively:
→ “Meaning not handled by syntax or semantics”
Pragmatics as residual category
Heterogeneous and theoretically weak domain
No unified explanatory framework
Impact
Pragmatics viewed as methodologically inferior
Treated as an appendix, not a theory
Pragmatics as Residue → Pragmatics as Explanation
Residue Stage
Covers deixis, implicature, presupposition, irony
Lacks formalization
Descriptive, not predictive
Explanatory Stage
Grice introduces inferential reasoning
Meaning explained via rational principles
Pragmatics provides systematic explanation, not leftovers
Context becomes theoretically constrained
Shift
From “what semantics cannot explain”
To “how communication actually works”
Emergence of Pragmatics as a Core Discipline
Speech Act Theory formalizes action in language
Gricean pragmatics introduces inferential models
Politeness theory links language and social structure
Cognitive pragmatics links language and mind
Discourse and interaction become legitimate data
Institutional Recognition
Dedicated textbooks and journals
Inclusion in core linguistics curricula
Pragmatics positioned at syntax–semantics–society interface
Modern Status of Pragmatics
No longer peripheral
Explains:
Meaning variability
Implicit communication
Social and cognitive dimensions
Central to:
Linguistics
Philosophy of language
Cognitive science
AI and discourse studies
Recap
Logical positivism → truth-only meaning
Ordinary language philosophy → meaning-in-use
Bar-Hillel → pragmatics as wastebasket
Grice → pragmatics as inference
Modern linguistics → pragmatics as core theory
3. The Semantics–Pragmatics Interface
Truth-Conditional vs. Non-Truth-Conditional Meaning
Truth-Conditional Meaning
Determines conditions under which an utterance is true or false
Core propositional content
Traditionally assigned to semantics
Stable across contexts (minimalist assumption)
Non-Truth-Conditional Meaning
Does not affect truth value
Includes:
Implicatures
Presuppositions
Expressive meaning
Discourse markers
Traditionally assigned to pragmatics
Key Tension
Whether pragmatic meaning can alter truth conditions
Pragmatic Intrusion into Semantics
Pragmatic processes contribute to truth-conditional content
Meaning not fully determined by syntax + lexicon
Context fills in missing parameters
Examples:
Temporal restriction (“John has eaten” → today)
Quantifier domain restriction
Spatial anchoring
Implication
Boundary between semantics and pragmatics is porous
Contextualism vs. Semantic Minimalism
Semantic Minimalism
Semantics delivers a complete minimal proposition
Context only resolves:
Indexicals
Ambiguity
Pragmatics adds secondary meanings only
Defends autonomy of semantics
Contextualism
Context required to determine basic proposition
Minimal semantic content often incomplete
Pragmatics contributes to what is said
Truth conditions are context-sensitive
Moderate vs. Radical Contextualism
Moderate Contextualism
Contextual enrichment constrained
Some semantic core remains
Pragmatic processes systematic and rule-governed
Compatible with compositionality
Radical Contextualism
No fixed semantic core
Meaning fully context-driven
Words radically underspecified
Strong rejection of minimal propositions
Debate Focus
How much meaning is encoded vs. inferred
Free Enrichment
Pragmatic addition without syntactic trigger
Not required by grammar
Supplies missing conceptual material
Example:
“It’s raining” → here / now
Alters truth conditions
Central argument against strict minimalism
Underspecification
Linguistic expressions encode incomplete meaning
Lexical items lack full specification
Context resolves indeterminacy
Applies to:
Adjectives (“ready”)
Verbs (“open”)
Quantifiers
Key Claim
Semantics underdetermines meaning by design
Summary
Semantics → encoded meaning
Pragmatics → inferred meaning
Minimalism → context-light
Contextualism → context-heavy
Free enrichment → pragmatics affects truth
Underspecification → meaning incomplete
Interface = theoretical fault line of pragmatics
II. Context and Indexicality
1. The Nature of Context
Context
Set of factors enabling utterance interpretation
Bridges linguistic form and intended meaning
Not fixed; dynamically constructed during interaction
Central to pragmatic inference
Physical Context
Time and place of utterance
Participants’ physical orientation
Perceptually available objects
Environmental constraints on reference
Enables demonstratives (“this,” “that”)
Anchors deictic expressions
Key Point
Meaning changes with situational relocation
Linguistic Context (Co-text)
Surrounding discourse
Prior utterances and upcoming talk
Governs anaphora and ellipsis
Determines topic continuity
Controls coherence relations
Function
Reduces ambiguity
Enables discourse-level inference
Social and Institutional Context
Social roles (teacher/student, judge/accused)
Power relations and hierarchy
Formal vs. informal settings
Cultural norms and expectations
Institutional constraints on speech acts
Determines felicity of performatives
Key Insight
Same utterance ≠ same force across institutions
Cognitive Context
Shared assumptions
Mutual knowledge
Beliefs, intentions, expectations
Relevance-theoretic cognitive environment
Dynamically updated during interaction
Function
Enables implicature derivation
Guides inferential processes
Filters relevance
Mutual Knowledge vs. Common Ground
Mutual knowledge: recursively shared beliefs
Common ground: pragmatically presupposed shared information
Common ground easier to manage cognitively
Foundation for presupposition and accommodation
Context Summary
Physical → perceptual anchoring
Linguistic → discourse continuity
Social → norm-governed meaning
Cognitive → inferential interpretation
Context = constructed, not given
Pragmatics = context-sensitive meaning system
2. Indexicals and Context-Sensitivity
Indexicals
Expressions whose reference depends on context
Cannot be interpreted without situational parameters
Encode context-sensitivity in linguistic form
Core evidence for pragmatic contribution to meaning
Kaplan’s Theory of Indexicals
Distinction between character and content
Character: rule mapping context to content
Content: proposition expressed in a context
Indexicals have fixed character, variable content
Meaning determined relative to:
Speaker
Time
Place
World
Key Claim
Context determines reference, not inference
Pure Indexicals
Reference automatically fixed by context
No speaker intention required
Do not involve pointing or demonstration
Examples:
“I”
“now”
“today”
“here”
Property
Context-saturated, not pragmatically enriched
Demonstratives
Require contextual salience + speaker intention
Often accompanied by gesture
Examples:
“this”
“that”
“these”
“those”
Key Difference
Demonstratives require pragmatic identification
Not fully resolved by context alone
Pure Indexicals vs. Demonstratives
Pure indexicals → automatic reference
Demonstratives → intention-dependent reference
Pure indexicals → semantics-driven
Demonstratives → pragmatics-driven
Shifting Indexicals
Indexical reference shifts in embedded contexts
Occurs in:
Reported speech
Attitude contexts
Some languages more than English
“I” may refer to reported speaker, not actual speaker
Theoretical Significance
Challenges Kaplan’s fixed-context model
Evidence for syntactic or pragmatic operators
Context-Shifting Operators
Linguistic elements that alter contextual parameters
Shift:
Speaker
Time
Location
Common in:
Quotation
Free indirect discourse
Attitude predicates
Function
Create embedded contexts
Allow multiple contextual layers within one utterance
Context-Sensitivity Summary
Indexicals → context-bound expressions
Kaplan → character vs. content
Pure indexicals → automatic reference
Demonstratives → intention + salience
Shifting indexicals → embedded contexts
Context-shifting operators → multiple contexts
III. Deixis: Anchoring Language to Experience
Deixis
Linguistic encoding of context-bound reference
Links language to speaker’s experiential position
Operates relative to a deictic center
Deictic Center (Origo)
Default coordinates: I–here–now
Speaker as reference anchor
Organizes person, space, and time
Shiftable in narrative and reported speech
Speaker–Hearer Alignment
Deictic choices reflect alignment or distance
Shared vs. divergent perspectives
Deixis used to include or exclude addressees
Crucial in persuasion and stance-taking
Perspective-Taking
Ability to adopt another’s deictic center
Essential for narrative, irony, empathy
Encoded through tense, pronouns, demonstratives
Breakdown leads to pragmatic failure
Core Deictic Categories
Person Deixis
Encodes participant roles
First, second, third person distinctions
Pronouns as primary markers
Honorifics encode respect and hierarchy
Kinship terms encode social relations
Includes inclusive vs. exclusive “we”
Spatial (Place) Deixis
Locates entities in physical space
Proximal vs. distal contrast
Speaker-oriented orientation
Demonstratives central
Frames of Reference
Intrinsic (object-centered)
Relative (speaker-centered)
Absolute (environment-based)
Temporal Deixis
Anchors events in time
Tense as grammaticalized deixis
Aspect encodes internal temporal structure
Calendric expressions supplement tense
Proximal vs. distal time distinctions
Extended and Abstract Deixis
Discourse / Textual Deixis
Reference to parts of discourse itself
“This argument,” “that claim”
Manages coherence
Enables meta-commentary
Empathetic and Emotional Deixis
Deictic choice expresses emotional stance
“This” signals closeness
“That” signals distance or disapproval
Encodes affect, not location
Social Deixis
Encodes social status and power
Titles, honorifics, pronoun choice
Reflects hierarchy and formality
Institutionalized in many languages
Gestural Deixis
Accompanied by pointing or gaze
Relies on multimodal cues
Common with demonstratives
Integrates language and bodily action
Deixis Summary
Deixis → context-anchored reference
Origo → I–here–now
Person → participants
Spatial → location
Temporal → time
Discourse → text reference
Empathetic → emotion
Social → power
Gestural → bodily cues
IV. Speech Act Theory: Language as Social Action
Speech Act Theory
Language performs actions, not just descriptions
Utterances evaluated by felicity, not truth alone
Meaning inseparable from social conventions
Austin’s Framework
Constatives vs. Performatives
Constatives
Describe states of affairs
Truth-evaluable
Traditionally central in philosophy
Performatives
Perform an action by being uttered
Not true or false
Require appropriate circumstances
Explicit vs. Implicit Performatives
Explicit Performatives
Contain performative verb
First-person present tense
“I promise,” “I apologize”
Implicit Performatives
Perform action without performative verb
Force inferred pragmatically
“I’ll be there” → promise
Locutionary, Illocutionary, Perlocutionary Acts
Locutionary Act
Act of saying something
Phonetic, phatic, rhetic levels
Illocutionary Act
Speaker’s intended act
Core of communication
Conventionally recognized force
Perlocutionary Act
Effect on hearer
Persuasion, fear, amusement
Not conventionally guaranteed
Searle’s Systematization
Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts
Assertives
Commit speaker to truth
Claims, assertions, reports
Directives
Attempt to get hearer to act
Requests, commands, advice
Commissives
Commit speaker to future action
Promises, threats, vows
Expressives
Express psychological state
Thanks, apologies, congratulations
Declarations
Change institutional reality
Require authority
“I pronounce you…”
Direction of Fit
Word-to-World
Language fits reality
Assertives
World-to-Word
Reality made to fit language
Directives, commissives
Double Direction
Declarations
Null Direction
Expressives
Felicity Conditions (Full Typology)
Propositional Content Condition
Preparatory Condition
Sincerity Condition
Essential Condition
Failure → misfire or abuse
Indirect Speech Acts
Indirectness
Illocutionary force differs from form
Common in requests and refusals
Relies on pragmatic inference
Conventional vs. Non-Conventional Indirectness
Conventional
Fixed form–function mapping
“Can you…?” as request
Non-Conventional
Context-dependent
“It’s cold here” → request
Pragmatic Inference and Shared Norms
Hearer infers intended act
Based on:
Shared knowledge
Social conventions
Rational cooperation
Power and Politeness in Indirectness
Indirectness mitigates face threat
Used to manage hierarchy
More indirect → less imposition
Central to politeness strategies
Critiques and Extensions
Cultural Relativity of Speech Acts
Speech act realization varies cross-culturally
Universal taxonomy contested
Cultural norms shape felicity
Institutional Speech Acts
Governed by formal rules
Authority-dependent
Legal, religious, bureaucratic contexts
Restricted speaker eligibility
Speech Acts in Digital Communication
Reduced contextual cues
Emojis as illocutionary markers
Platform-specific conventions
New performatives (blocking, liking)
Speech Act Summary
Language = action
Illocution = core meaning
Indirectness = inference
Felicity = success conditions
Power + culture = variation
Gricean Pragmatics
Communication as inferential process
Meaning exceeds linguistic code
Hearer reconstructs speaker intention
Rational cooperation underlies interpretation
Cooperative Principle (CP)
“Make your contribution appropriate”
Assumes rational, goal-directed speakers
Not moral obligation
Default assumption in interpretation
Rationality and Communicative Goals
Speakers aim at informativeness and relevance
Hearers assume intentional meaning
Interpretation guided by optimal inference
Communication treated as rational behavior
Conversational Maxims
Maxim of Quantity
Provide required amount of information
Avoid over- and under-informativeness
Maxim of Quality
Do not say what you believe false
Do not say what lacks evidence
Maxim of Relation
Be relevant
Governs topic continuity
Maxim of Manner
Be clear, brief, orderly
Avoid ambiguity and obscurity
Submaxims and Pragmatic Reasoning
Maxims operate jointly, not independently
Apparent violation triggers inference
Hearer searches for implied meaning
Maxims function as interpretive heuristics
Non-Observance of Maxims
Flouting
Open, intentional breach
Speaker expects recognition
Primary source of implicature
Common in irony and metaphor
Violating
Covert breach
Speaker intends to mislead
No implicature intended
Deceptive communication
Infringing
Breach due to incompetence
Language limitation or performance error
No communicative intention
Opting Out
Explicit refusal to cooperate
Ethical or institutional constraints
“I can’t disclose that”
Implicature
Meaning inferred, not said
Cancelable
Context-dependent
Non-detachable (mostly)
Conventional Implicature
Lexically triggered
Independent of context
Does not affect truth conditions
Examples:
“but”
“therefore”
“even”
Conversational Implicature
Derived via CP and maxims
Context-sensitive
Inferentially recoverable
Central to pragmatic meaning
Generalized Conversational Implicature (GCI)
Normally arises without special context
Default inference
Example:
“A student” → not mine
Particularized Conversational Implicature (PCI)
Requires specific context
Highly situation-dependent
Less predictable
Scalar Implicature
Based on lexical scales
“Some” → not all
“Possible” → not certain
Relies on Quantity maxim
Neo-Gricean Approaches
Horn’s Q- and R-Principles
Q-principle: say as much as possible
R-principle: say no more than necessary
Economy vs. informativeness
Levinson’s Presumptive Meanings
Default pragmatic inferences
Pragmatics precedes full semantics
Generalized implicature as cognitive shortcut
Gricean Summary
CP → rational communication
Maxims → inferential triggers
Flouting → implicature
Violation → deception
GCI vs. PCI → default vs. context
Scalar implicature → lexical scales
Neo-Griceans → systematization
VI. Presupposition, Reference, and Inference
Presupposition
Background assumption taken for granted
Survives negation
Part of common ground
Not asserted, but assumed
Semantic vs. Pragmatic Presupposition
Semantic Presupposition
Lexically or structurally triggered
Conventionally encoded
Context-independent
Stable across speakers
Pragmatic Presupposition
Context-dependent assumptions
Based on speaker beliefs
Negotiable in discourse
Linked to common ground
Projection Problem
How presuppositions behave in complex sentences
Persistence under:
Negation
Questions
Conditionals
Central theoretical challenge
Tests boundary of semantics vs. pragmatics
Filters and Plugs
Plugs
Block presupposition projection
Attitude predicates (e.g. “believe”)
Filters
Allow conditional projection
Conditionals and conjunctions
Projection depends on entailment relations
Presupposition Triggers
Lexical Triggers
Factive verbs (“realize”)
Change-of-state verbs (“stop”)
Iteratives (“again”)
Implicative verbs (“manage”)
Syntactic Triggers
Cleft constructions
Pseudo-clefts
Temporal clauses
Wh-questions
Discourse-Based Triggers
Contrastive focus
Topic–comment structure
Discourse particles
Accommodation
Hearer adjusts common ground
Presupposition accepted without prior mention
Enables discourse continuity
Conceptualized by Lewis
Common Ground Management
Dynamic updating
Acceptance, rejection, or suspension
Presuppositions tested against shared knowledge
Repair and Rejection
Explicit denial of presupposition
Clarification requests
Metapragmatic negotiation
Reference
Definite Descriptions
“the + NP”
Assume unique or identifiable referent
Depend on shared knowledge
Central to reference theory
Donnellan’s Distinction
Attributive Use
Description applies whoever fits
Speaker not identifying individual
Referential Use
Speaker has specific individual in mind
Description used as pointer
Key Insight
Reference driven by speaker intention
Anaphora and Cataphora
Anaphora
Backward reference
Requires antecedent accessibility
Cataphora
Forward reference
Resolved later in discourse
Accessibility and Discourse Reference
Centering Theory
Models local discourse coherence
Ranks discourse entities
Explains pronoun resolution
Focuses on attentional state shifts
Salience and Attentional States
Salient referents easier to retrieve
Influenced by:
Grammatical role
Recency
Thematic prominence
Pragmatic, not purely syntactic
Section Summary
Presupposition → background assumption
Projection → survival in embedding
Triggers → lexical, syntactic, discourse
Accommodation → common ground update
Reference → speaker intention
Donnellan → attributive vs. referential
Anaphora → discourse linkage
Centering → attentional coherence
VII. Cognitive Pragmatics and Relevance Theory
Cognitive Turn in Pragmatics
Shift from code-based to inferential models
Communication as mental reasoning, not just decoding
Speaker meaning reconstructed via context and cognition
Explains indirect, figurative, and non-literal meaning
Inferential vs. Code Models
Code Model
Meaning encoded in linguistic forms
Hearer decodes message
Assumes stable truth-conditional content
Inferential Model
Meaning inferred from speaker intention
Context essential
Non-literal meaning recoverable
Basis of Relevance Theory
Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson)
Principle of Relevance
Every utterance conveys a guarantee of optimal relevance
Optimal relevance = max cognitive effect, minimal processing effort
Communicative efficiency drives interpretation
Cognitive Effects
Strengthening existing assumptions
Revision of beliefs
Deriving new implications
Inference beyond literal content
Processing Effort
Cognitive cost of decoding meaning
Lower effort + higher effect = higher relevance
Balances informativeness vs. complexity
Explicature
Pragmatically enriched proposition
Includes:
Enrichment (adding implicit content)
Saturation (filling argument slots)
Disambiguation (resolving ambiguity)
What is “explicitly communicated” in context
Enrichment
Adds meaning not lexically encoded
Supplies context-dependent content
Example: “John ate” → what, when, where inferred
Saturation
Fills missing arguments in underspecified expressions
Pronouns, tense, demonstratives
Disambiguation
Resolves lexical or structural ambiguity
Guided by context and cognitive relevance
Implicit Communication
Weak Implicature
Derived by default, context-modulated
Usually cancellable
Example: “Some students passed” → not all
Strong Implicature
Requires intentional signaling
Less cancelable
Often figurative or rhetorical
Poetic and Figurative Effects
Metaphor, irony, hyperbole
Generated via inferential reasoning
Exploits expectation vs. relevance contrast
Central to cognitive pragmatics
Summary
Inferential communication → mental reasoning
Relevance = max effect, min effort
Explicature → enriched, explicit content
Implicit meaning → weak vs. strong
Figurative → inferred via context
VIII. Politeness, Face, and Social Meaning
Goffman’s Face Theory
Face = public self-image in interaction
Interactional construct, co-constructed by participants
Loss or threat triggers social negotiation
Central to pragmatic meaning beyond literal content
Brown & Levinson
Positive Face
Desire for approval, acceptance, affiliation
Attained via compliments, solidarity markers
Negative Face
Desire for autonomy, freedom from imposition
Attained via deference, hedging, indirectness
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Actions that threaten positive or negative face
Calculated via P (power), D (social distance), R (imposition)
Politeness Strategies
Bald on record → minimal mitigation
Positive politeness → emphasize solidarity
Negative politeness → mitigate imposition, deferential
Off-record → indirect, ambiguous hints
Impoliteness
Culpeper’s Model
Strategic use of language to threaten face intentionally
Aggression, sarcasm, ridicule
Strategic Rudeness
Deliberate violation of politeness norms
Social control, humor, conflict
Institutional Impoliteness
Structured power asymmetries
Bureaucracy, legal, and political contexts
Hedging and Vagueness
Linguistic mitigation of commitment
“I think,” “maybe,” “sort of”
Protects speaker from face loss or conflict
Signals epistemic stance
Functions
Risk mitigation in social, academic, political discourse
Preserves relational balance
Softens directives or assertions
Summary
Face = public self-image (Goffman)
Positive face → desire for approval
Negative face → desire for autonomy
FTAs → require mitigation via politeness strategies
Impoliteness → deliberate face threat
Hedging → manage risk, signal stance
IX. Interactional Pragmatics
Conversation Analysis (CA)
Studies real-time talk-in-interaction
Focuses on structural and sequential patterns
Meaning emerges from social practice, not just semantics
Turn-Taking Mechanisms
Allocation of speaking turns
Rules for smooth transitions
Avoid overlap or silence
Governed by social norms and context
Transition Relevance Places (TRPs)
Points where turn transfer is possible
Determined by syntactic, prosodic, and pragmatic cues
Adjacency Pairs
Paired utterances with predictable response
Examples: question–answer, greeting–greeting, offer–acceptance
Preferred response → socially expected, unmarked
Dispreferred response → delayed, mitigated, hedged
Repair
Management of communication trouble
Self-initiated repair → speaker corrects themselves
Other-initiated repair → hearer prompts correction
Preserves coherence and mutual understanding
Sequential Organization
Talk organized into functional sequences
Openings → initiate interaction, establish context
Closings → signal end, ensure completion
Topic Management → introduction, development, shift, maintenance
Sequential patterning maintains interactional coherence
Summary
CA → talk-in-interaction
Turn-taking → smooth allocation, TRPs
Adjacency pairs → predictable response structure
Repair → self vs. other initiated
Sequential organization → openings, closings, topic flow
X. Discourse and Macro-Pragmatics
Pragmatics vs. Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics → context-dependent meaning at utterance level
Discourse Analysis → larger stretches of language, interactional structure
Cohesion → grammatical/textual linking (pronouns, connectors)
Coherence → logical/pragmatic sense-making across discourse
Pragmatic Markers
Discourse Markers
Signal relations between utterances
Examples: “well,” “so,” “however,” “then”
Manage topic shifts, turn-taking, emphasis
Pragmatic Particles
Convey speaker attitude, modality, politeness
Examples: “please,” “right,” “you know,” “I mean”
Encode subtle pragmatic meaning without propositional content
Genre and Institutional Discourse
Legal Discourse
Highly formal, rigid syntax
Speech acts regulated by institutional rules
Authority and performativity central
Political Discourse
Strategic use of rhetoric, implicature, hedging
Face management crucial
Persuasion and framing dominate
Academic Discourse
Evidentiality, hedging, and objectivity markers
Cohesion and coherence carefully managed
Pragmatic markers moderate claims and stance
Summary
Pragmatics → utterance meaning, context-dependent
Discourse Analysis → larger structure, coherence
Markers → discourse, attitude, politeness
Institutional genres → legal, political, academic
Macro-pragmatics → social, cultural, genre-driven meaning
XI. Intercultural and Applied Pragmatics
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics
Studies how culture shapes language use
Sociopragmatic failure → inappropriate action relative to social norms
Pragmalinguistic failure → linguistic form mismatch, force misinterpretation
Misunderstandings arise even with grammatical competence
Interlanguage Pragmatics
Pragmatic knowledge in L2 learners
Development of speech act realization, politeness strategies, implicature comprehension
Fossilization → persistent non-target-like pragmatic patterns
Influenced by L1 transfer, limited exposure, instruction
Pragmatics and Language Teaching
Teaching Implicature and Politeness
Explicit instruction in cultural and contextual norms
Focus on indirect requests, refusals, compliments, hedging
Role-play, authentic discourse, task-based methods
Assessment of Pragmatic Competence
Discourse completion tasks (DCTs)
Role-plays and simulations
Written vs. oral performance
Measures understanding of context, intention, and politeness
Summary
Cross-cultural → sociopragmatic vs. pragmalinguistic failure
Interlanguage → L2 development, fossilization
Teaching → implicature, politeness, authentic context
Assessment → DCTs, simulations, discourse-based evaluation
XII. Experimental and Neurolinguistic Pragmatics
Experimental Pragmatics
Empirical study of meaning-in-use
Uses psycholinguistic methods to test inference and comprehension
Measures include reaction times, acceptability judgments, comprehension tasks
Eye-Tracking Studies
Track visual attention during sentence/discourse processing
Reveal real-time processing of implicatures, reference, and ambiguity
ERP (Event-Related Potentials) Studies
Neural correlates of pragmatic processing
Components: N400 (semantic/pragmatic integration), P600 (syntactic/pragmatic reanalysis)
Neuropragmatics
Studies brain mechanisms underlying pragmatic competence
Mapping language regions (e.g., right hemisphere, frontal areas) to speech act, implicature, and context processing
Neural differentiation between literal vs. non-literal meaning
Processing of Implicatures
Cognitive load measurable via reaction time and neural markers
Scalar, generalized, and particularized implicatures processed differently
Context integration is incremental and predictive
Pragmatics in Clinical Populations
Aphasia
Impaired pragmatics despite preserved syntax/semantics
Difficulties in indirect requests, irony, or conversational repair
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Challenges in theory of mind → impaired understanding of speaker intention
Reduced comprehension of indirect speech, irony, implicature
Summary
Experimental methods → eye-tracking, ERP
Neuropragmatics → brain mapping of pragmatic processes
Implicature → cognitive load, incremental integration
Clinical pragmatics → aphasia, ASD → deficits in context, inference, and social use
Pragmatics in NLP
Modeling context-dependent meaning in natural language processing
Challenges: ambiguity, implicature, reference resolution
Integration of semantics + world knowledge
Speech Acts in AI Systems
AI needs to recognize illocutionary force
Classify utterances: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, declarations
Applications: virtual assistants, dialogue systems
Intent Recognition
Determine speaker goals from text or speech
Combines lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic cues
Essential for task-oriented dialogue systems
Chatbots and Pragmatic Failure
Failure arises from:
Misinterpretation of indirect requests
Ignoring context or background knowledge
Mismanagement of politeness or turn-taking
Requires pragmatic modeling + inference algorithms
Online Politeness and Trolling
Digital interactions require explicit or implicit politeness markers
Trolling = deliberate impoliteness, face threat, or social disruption
Pragmatic strategies online differ due to lack of nonverbal cues
Emojis, punctuation, and formatting serve pragmatic functions
Summary
NLP → context-sensitive meaning modeling
AI → speech act recognition, intent understanding
Chatbots → prone to pragmatic failure
Online interactions → politeness, trolling, multimodal cues
XIV. Pragmatics, Culture, and Ideology
Power and Ideology
Language reflects and enacts social power
Control, dominance, and hierarchy encoded pragmatically
Manipulation through politeness, indirectness, euphemism
Institutional discourse reinforces ideology
Gender and Pragmatics
Gendered speech patterns: politeness, indirectness, assertiveness
Differential use of hedges, intensifiers, and backchannels
Pragmatic competence shaped by social expectations
Gendered conversational styles influence miscommunication
Pragmatics of Resistance and Silence
Strategic use of non-verbal or non-uttered acts
Silence as passive resistance or face protection
Indirect speech, avoidance, or subtle dissent
Context-dependent interpretation crucial
Pragmatics in Postcolonial Contexts
Language mediates cultural dominance and identity
Code-switching, borrowing, and politeness norms adapt to colonial legacies
Pragmatic strategies reflect resistance, accommodation, or hybridity
Intercultural pragmatic failure influenced by historical power asymmetries
Summary
Language = tool of power and ideology
Gender → differential pragmatic behavior
Resistance & silence → strategic non-action
Postcolonial → pragmatics reflects history, identity, and adaptation
XV. Current Debates and Future Directions
Is Pragmatics Modular?
Debate: distinct cognitive module vs. integrated with semantics/cognition
Evidence from brain imaging, aphasia, ASD studies
Modular view → specialized neural circuits for pragmatics
Integrated view → pragmatics emerges from general cognition
Boundaries of Pragmatic Inference
How far context shapes meaning beyond literal content
Radical contextualism vs. semantic minimalism debate
Issues: free enrichment, saturation, explicature limits
Pragmatic “intrusion” into semantic computation
Pragmatics vs. Cognition
Pragmatic reasoning as general cognitive process
Role of theory of mind, attention, working memory
Distinguish linguistic knowledge vs. cognitive inference
Debates on universality vs. culture-specific cognition
AI and the Limits of Pragmatic Modeling
NLP models struggle with: indirect speech, implicature, irony, humor
Context, common ground, and intention hard to encode
Chatbots & dialogue systems → partial pragmatics, failure-prone
Future research: hybrid cognitive-pragmatic modeling, multimodal integration
Section Summary
Modular vs. integrated cognition → neural & cognitive evidence
Boundaries → radical vs. minimal context
Pragmatics = inference + cognition
AI → partial success, limits in indirect, contextual meaning
Concluding Perspective
Pragmatics is no longer the residual domain of meaning. It is the interface science that explains how linguistic form, human cognition, and social structure converge to produce communication. In contemporary linguistics, particularly within the scholarly traditions, pragmatics is the discipline that makes language human.
Suggested Readings
