semantics_and_pragmatics
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revision | |||
— | semantics_and_pragmatics [2021/07/12 14:34] (current) – [References and further reading] Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | # Semantics and pragmatics # | ||
+ | Semantics and pragmatics are two distinct aspects of communication | ||
+ | that pertain, in different ways, to the meaning of a linguistic | ||
+ | utterance or other form of communication. Meaning itself seems like a | ||
+ | fundamental aspect of communication, | ||
+ | to think about what something means. Yet upon closer inspection we see | ||
+ | it is more complex and this is where semantics and pragmatics become | ||
+ | relevant. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## Natural and conventional signs ## | ||
+ | |||
+ | If communication takes place by signs, then we can note, as | ||
+ | Augustine does, that it involves ' | ||
+ | (Meier-Oeser 2011). Dark clouds on the horizon are signs of rain and | ||
+ | flags, words, and many gestures are signs of nations and ideas because | ||
+ | the people communicating with them have learned their conventional | ||
+ | interpretations. This hints at the possibility that meaning has | ||
+ | several dimensions. Why clouds signify rain and flags signify nations | ||
+ | is different. Dark clouds in the sky are connected to the here and | ||
+ | now. They are materially part of the rain that will come, and one | ||
+ | could say that the rain itself causes clouds. Another example is a | ||
+ | foot print, which is a sign of someone walking in a direction because | ||
+ | it is the effect and the visible trace of someone' | ||
+ | signs have meaning because of their relationship to a space and time, | ||
+ | a context, of their production. Flags, by contrast, and most words, | ||
+ | are meaningful because they represent or 'stand for' a particular | ||
+ | idea, and one can substitute for the other. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here it is important to point out that many people probably would say | ||
+ | that semantics is the study of the meaning of words. Historically this | ||
+ | is true, in the sense that the study of semantics is a particular | ||
+ | approach to communication which attempts to understand why it conveys | ||
+ | meaning in the form of concepts by looking for an underlying abstract | ||
+ | logic. However, it is my view that this is not an adequate definition | ||
+ | of meaning itself, and for this reason, the field of semantics has | ||
+ | always run into its own limits. Many forms of communication derive | ||
+ | meaning from their context of use, and indeed one could argue that all | ||
+ | instances of communication get some of their meaning in their | ||
+ | context. Thus semantics as the study of meaning has always been | ||
+ | incomplete without some attention to the pragmatic aspect of | ||
+ | communication, | ||
+ | is at some level both a flag and a rain cloud. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## Shifters ## | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are many lingusitic forms which have no meaning except for their | ||
+ | connection to the context of their utterance. Otto Jespersen calls | ||
+ | these words " | ||
+ | shift in meaning depening on who is speaking and to whom one is | ||
+ | speaking, as well as when and where. Pronouns are the chief example of | ||
+ | this. The English words I and you, among others, depend on the context | ||
+ | of utterance to refer to something. Demonstratives (this, that) also | ||
+ | fall into this category. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## Indexicality ## | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another important example of pragmatic is the indexicality of | ||
+ | communicative form. This has been particularly influential in studies | ||
+ | of the social use of language and communication and the study of | ||
+ | culture' | ||
+ | an idea because it is physically contiguous with it, or in some usages | ||
+ | of it, is simply associated with it. Hence, one's accent signifies | ||
+ | indexically the origin of the speaker without referring to it. Variant | ||
+ | sounds of an utterance, independently of the words they form, point to | ||
+ | or index the speaker and, in an extended sense, the context of the | ||
+ | utterance. Similarly, speaking styles (also known as registers) index | ||
+ | the background and social status of the speaker. Doctors index their | ||
+ | medical training by their habitual preference for polite-sounding | ||
+ | technical jargon for ailments, and so on. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The concept of an indexical sign comes from the work of Charles | ||
+ | Sanders Peirce and his trichotomy of signs: symbol, icon and | ||
+ | index. Although the index in some ways resembles a " | ||
+ | Peirce' | ||
+ | conventional to a more general account of meaning as a process. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## Performatives ## | ||
+ | |||
+ | Philosophers of language have been concerned with semantic meaning as | ||
+ | part of a more general inquiry into the relationship between language | ||
+ | and truth. J. L. Austin (1962) observed that there was a limit to this | ||
+ | inquiry because there were many kinds of linguistic expressions which | ||
+ | were neither true nor false, but still had meaning. He argued that one | ||
+ | could, at least provisionally, | ||
+ | called constatives, | ||
+ | an act. These he called performatives or speech-acts, | ||
+ | than representing a fact about the world, they performed an | ||
+ | action. Performatives can be identified by their verbs: promise, bet, | ||
+ | name, decree. In uttering these verbs one is performing the action | ||
+ | they name. Thus the meaning of these statements is not whether or not | ||
+ | the correspond to reality. Rather, Austin proposes that such | ||
+ | speech-acts are either felicitous or infelicitous, | ||
+ | whether they are accepted as valid in a particular context. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As he develops his concept of performatives, | ||
+ | that the distinct between constatives and performatives is not | ||
+ | absolute, because many statements seem to be both. Many statements | ||
+ | have an indirect meaning and so assessing them in relation to their | ||
+ | truthfulness leaves out the extent of their message. Thus, he | ||
+ | concludes that all statements have three different aspects: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * locutionary, | ||
+ | * illocutionary, | ||
+ | * perlocutionary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Suppose people are gathered in a classroom, and a teacher says to no | ||
+ | one in particular, " | ||
+ | of the statement is eithe true or not, given the context, the | ||
+ | illocutionary force of the utterance is also clear. This statement is | ||
+ | also a type of speech-act, specifically, | ||
+ | window.' | ||
+ | is, someone responding by closing a window. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## References and further reading ## | ||
+ | |||
+ | Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words: The William James | ||
+ | Lectures, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jespersen, Otto. 2013 [1922]. Language: Its Nature and | ||
+ | Development. London: Routledge. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meier-Oeser, | ||
+ | Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer | ||
+ | 2011. http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Parmentier, Richard J. 1994. Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic | ||
+ | Anthropology. Bloomington, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Silverstein, | ||
+ | Cultural Description.” In Meaning in Anthropology. School of American | ||
+ | Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: University of New | ||
+ | Mexico Press. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ----- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP box similar> |