a part of applied linguistics: "pragmatics"

assalamualaikum.. hari ini saya akan share tentang salah satu bidang applied linguistics yang saya sukai yaitu "pragmatics"

untuk tahu lebih lanjut silahkan baca artikelnya..

What is pragmatics?

Different authors have expressed this same ideia in different way

Gazdar 1979: “pragmatics=meaning - truth condition”

Stalnaker1970: “pragmatics is the study of linguistics acts and the contexts is which in they are performed”

Kempson 1988: “pragmatics provides an account of how sentences are used in utterances to convey information in context”

Wikipedia: “Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech acts theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction, and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics, and antrophology.”

Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g.,grammar, lexicon) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.

Ambiguity

The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and his or her intent, it is difficult to infer the meaning with confidence. For example:

• It could mean that the space that belongs to you has green ambient lighting.
• It could mean that you are driving through a green traffic signal.
• It could mean that you no longer have to wait to continue driving.
• It could mean that you are permitted to proceed in a non-driving context.
• It could mean that your body has a green glow.
• It could mean that you possess a light bulb that is tinted green.

Similarly, the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars, or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars (syntactics ambiguity). The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the speaker's intent. As defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity — a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context — as opposed to an utterance, which is a concrete example of a speech act in a specific context. The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences do not have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. The cat sat on the mat is a sentence in English. If someone were to say to someone else, "The cat sat on the mat," this is an example of an utterance. Thus, there is no such thing as a sentence, term, expression or word symbolically representing a single true meaning; it is underspecified (which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. The meaning of an utterance, on the other hand, is inferred based on linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the non-linguistic context of the utterance (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). In mathematics with Berry’s paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable". The ambiguity with words shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited.

Etymology

The word pragmatics derives via latin pragmaticus from the Greek πραγματικός (pragmatikos), meaning amongst others "fit for action" which comes from πρᾶγμα (pragma), "deed, act" and that from πράσσω (prassō), "to pass over, to practise, to achieve"^.

Areas of interest

• The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are.
• The study of the meaning in context, and the influence that a given context can have on the message. It requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, and the place and time of the utterance.
• The study of implicaturs i.e. the things that are communicated even though they are not explicitly expressed.
• The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.
• The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning, i.e. that which is unsaid and unintended, or unintentional.
• Information structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and hearer
• Formal pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use, for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics.

Phenomena we will study

·         Conversational implicature

·         Presupposition

·         Conventional implicature

·         Speech acts & discourse

Conversational implicature

·         Utterances often give rise to meanings that are richer/stronger than what is literally said.

·         (1) David is quite well. He likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been to prison yet.

=> David is likely to get in trouble with the law.

·         Such inferences are called conversational implicatures.

·         Typically explained by factoring in certain rules that interlocuters follow.

·         Q: Which conversational rule do you think explains the inference in (1)

Presupposition

·          Other sentences require that certain things hold / have already been accepted in discourse.

·         (2) The British Queen has several palaces.

=> Britain has a Queen.

·         (3) Putin regrets invading Crimea.

=> Putin invaded Crimea.

·          The above inferences are called presuppositions.

·         If you don’t believe the presupposed inference, you will most probably reject the entire sentence.

·         Q: Which words in (2)-(3) trigger the presupposed inferences?

·         Conventional implicatures

·         Other inferences are not necessarily presupposed and can introduce new information.

·         However, they are felt to be secondary to the main point the sentence makes.

·         (4) Queen Elizabeth, who has several palaces, will soon retire.

=> Queen Elizabeth has several palaces.

·         (5) Putin, the invader of Crimea, is in love with Alina.

=> Putin invaded Crimea.

·         Such inferences are known conventional implicatures.

·         Q: What are the underlined phrases called?

Utterances & discourses

·         Human communication consists of discourses.

·         Discourses consist of utterances.

·         Utterances inside discourse are structured by inferred coherence relations.

·         (9) John took a train from Paris to Istanbul. He has relatives there.

=> John went to Istanbul because he has relatives there.

·         The inference above arises because the second sentence is understood as an Explanation for the first.

ssource: 

  potts-pragmatics-oupcompling

  slides_01_-_what_is_pragmatics 

 seperti yang telah anda baca dan lihat banyak sekali kekurangan dan mungkin saja kesalahan yang saya lakukan karena saya belum sepenuhnya mendalami dan membaca secara keseluruhan materi yang saya dapat. so, i wanna say sorry for all my mistakes.