Pragmatics ​

We referred the reference to the semantic layer of the language - to determine how exactly, understandably or not, the reference to the object or situation is formed. And we discussed the common understanding of the meaning of communication, the same interpretation of symbols, phrases, statements, ensuring reference to the same objects or ideas.

Now we will expand the understanding of reference, make it also pragmatic. How to refer to an object and construct a statement in such a way as to achieve the goal of communication? Is it enough to achieve a common understanding of the meaning for successful communication?

It turns out, no, it is not enough! Successful work with the semantic layer of the language is very limitedly useful for communication without an understanding of the pragmatic layer - without understanding the rules by which similarly interpreted semantic statements can lead, for example, to actions completely opposite to the desired ones. Pragmatics of the language studies exactly this - what needs to be considered in the statement so that what is said is not just understood by the addressee, but also leads to the actions that you want to encourage. And how exactly understandable content of the statement leads to some specific or completely different consequences.

Pragmatics deals with questions about how the author of a message, the message, and the addressee are connected in a specific communicative situation or in a communicative situation of some kind. For example, these may be such questions:

• When we use this expression - what do we want to achieve?
• What do we want to achieve if we use this expression exactly like this?
• What features of this expression allow us to hope for exactly this result?
• How useful is this expression, that is, does it lead the interlocutor to the goal of communication that we set?
• What other results of this message are possible?
• What alternative messages could lead to this result more likely?
• What did the author of the message expect to achieve from us?

Of course, pragmatics is built on an understanding of semantics. Semantic analysis gives us preliminary materials for analyzing pragmatics. But it is pragmatics that is ultimately needed to coordinate joint actions.

For example, from a semantic point of view, we can say that the following phrases belong to different dialects of the Russian language but have the same meaning:

- Gracious sovereign, please approach.

- Hey dude, come here.

However, pragmatic analysis allows us to suggest that these phrases will evoke different feelings and lead to different actions by their recipient.

Even for statements in programming languages (computer programs), there is an analogue of pragmatics. As you may know, a program undergoes a syntax check before execution, and if the syntax is incorrect, the program will not be executed at all. The semantics of each line of a syntactically correct program can be explained - here they wanted to sum something, here to write to memory, there to compare.

But the program launched for execution may produce the correct result, or it may loop indefinitely, divide by zero, or reboot the computer. Moreover, the same program may demonstrate all these types of behavior depending on the initial data passed to it! This is an analogue of pragmatic analysis - whether the same formally correct program will be useful in different real circumstances.

Pragmatic analysis of a statement in a natural language is impossible without analyzing the context. What will cause one reaction in a certain context may cause a completely opposite reaction in another.

Take a look at the examples of utterances in slang language and in the old-fashioned polite dialect above, and imagine both language options in two situations - at a social gathering and in a back alley.

Let's return to the possible reasons for communication failure. Pragmatics provides answers to the question of why communication was successful (achieved its goal) or failed.

The third possibility of failure is a pragmatic failure with semantic success. That is, the author of the message managed to express their thoughts in the message so that the recipient understood them exactly as intended - and decided not to do what they were prompted to do, or even do the opposite. The reason for pragmatic failure is the incorrect consideration of the recipient's interests, taking into account not only the content of the message but also the context of the communication situation.

In a real communicative situation, it is necessary to constantly switch between pragmatic and semantic analysis. An approximate description of actions during communication (for the situation of receiving a message) looks like this:

• In the background, we constantly process the context of the communication situation, monitor what is happening in the world around us.
• We receive a language message, determine the language, recognize the symbols used.
• Contextually + compositionally interpret the message, determine what it refers to in the real world.
• If necessary, determine the corresponding ideas and concepts, the meaning.
• Relate the message to the information we have about the real world around us (or our expectations), considering the context, and try to imagine under what conditions the message will be true.
• Understand what goals the sender of the message set for themselves, what actions they want us to take.
• Make a decision on taking these (or other!) actions based on the interpretation of the message, its truthfulness, context, the sender's intentions, and our interests.

So, if you want to communicate successfully, that is, ultimately coordinate real actions with people and other agents (possibly computers), you want to understand them and want them to understand you. Then keep in mind that an unprepared person sending you some linguistic message generally does not think much about choosing signs, uses memorized patterns, and does not anticipate how you will interpret their words.

Therefore, it is up to you to determine, guess, realize the models of semantic and pragmatic reference both for yourself and for others. Different ways of reference - transition from a sign (word, phrase, linguistic expression) to a meaning are appropriate and useful in different situations. And to understand what the interlocutor meant, you often have to speculate on how exactly they expected you to interpret their text.