This article on the history of pragmatism will introduce you to the first significant studies that developed what today is known as pragmatics and subsequent efforts that have popularized the discipline. You will also see how these pioneering efforts attempted to broaden the scope of pragmatics and the extent of improvement thereafter as more language scholars became interested in the field. You will get to see why we have decided to discuss the relationship between Pragmatics and Semantics in this article rather than in the last module where the interfaces of Pragmatics are generally discussed.
The Origin of Pragmatics (Charles Morris, 1938)
The origin of modern pragmatics is attributable to Charles Morris (1938), a philosopher who was concerned with the study of the science of signs or “Semiotics”. According to Morris, Semiotics consisted of three (3) broad branches namely:
(a) Syntax being the formal relation of signs to one another
(b) Semantics being the formal relations of signs to objects to which they refer
(c) Pragmatics being the formal relations of signs to interpreter (the language user)
Within each of these branches (e.g. syntax) Morris also distinguished between “pure studies” and “descriptive studies.” Pure studies are concerned with the explanation/elaboration of a sign system/symbols used to describe language called metalanguage.While descriptive studies are the application of the metalanguage to a particular language,
i. e. descriptions of signs (or words) and their usages. As we noted in Unit 1, Morris attempted to include some aspects of psychology, biology and sociology which occur in the functioning of signs known as the “biotic aspect of semiosis” in pragmatics. But we know that this scope is much wider than what goes on today in linguistic pragmatics.
Interestingly, Morris’ broad use of pragmatics has been retained in some quarters and this explains the use of the term in disciplines such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, communication etc. Pragmatics is also used within analytical philosophy.
Carnap (1938) on Pragmatism
Carnap like Morris was a philosopher and logician. His work is quite influential because of his attempt to narrow down the scope of pragmatics. He also distinguished a trichotomy of semiotics as follows:
(i) If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker, or to put it in more general terms, to the user of the language, then we assign it (the investigation) to the field of pragmatics.
(ii) .. .If we abstract from the user of the language and analyze only the expressions and their designata, (references) we are in the field of semantics.
(iii) And finally, if we abstract from the designata also and analyze only the relations between the expressions, we are in (logical) syntax (quotedfrom Levinson, 1983:3)
Carnap retained Morris’ idea of pragmatics as an investigation in which explicit reference is made to the speaker or the user of the language and equated pragmatics with descriptive semiotics (formal study of meaning). Like Morris, he made a distinction between pure and descriptive studies, equating pragmatics with the latter. He also added a pure pragmatics to include concepts like belief, utterance and intention and how they relate to each other. This latter idea (i.e. pure pragmatics) has since been dropped. In the 1960’s, Carnap’s definition of pragmatics as requiring reference to the user was adopted within Linguistics, especially within a movement called “Generative Semantics.”
It is necessary to mention here that Carnap’s definition of pragmatics as requiring reference to the user of the language is as too narrow as it is too broad. According to Levinson (1983), it is too broad because it admits such studies as ‘slips of the tongue or word associations and studies in linguistic pragmatics should be restricted to investigations that have at least some linguistic implications.
On the other hand, it is too narrow because if we take words like I and you,for example, they identify particular participants (or users) and their role in the speech event, just as words like here and now indicate the place and time of the event (not necessarily referring to the user). Therefore it is argued that Carnap’s definition might be modified to say something like “If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker, or to put it in more general terms, to the user of the language, and those linguistic investigations that make necessary reference to aspects of the context, then we assign it to the field of pragmatic.”
Pragmatics and Semantics
According to Carnap (1938) “if we abstract from the user of the language and analyse only the expressions and their designate (objects), we are in the field of Semantics”. Hence Semantics is “the formal relation of signs to the objects they refer to” (Morris 1938). While Semantics is defined as meaning of words or linguistic expression in a given language, (without reference to the speaker and the situation), pragmatics is defined in relation to the speaker and the context of the communication event, with a particular interest in the functions, intentions, goals and effects of utterances.
Semantics is simply concerned with the conventional meaning of words, phrases and sentences rather than what a speaker or writer might want the words to mean in a particular context/situation. This technical approach to meaning centres on the objective and general (Yule, 1996). Hence, we talk of meaning in terms of universal applications. In other words, what an English expression means in Zambia is what it should mean elsewhere. So linguistic semantics emphasises conventional meaning expressed by the use of words and sentences of a language.
Some scholars, however, have argued that pragmatics is no different from semantics because according to them semantics adequately covers all aspects of pragmatics. The contextual theory of meaning (which is a semantic theory) for example, explains the relationship between language and oncontext. On the other hand, scholars in defence of pragmatics, argue that pragmatics covers those areas that semantics has hitherto overlooked, especially the concept of speech acts. It throws more light to what speakers/writers actually do with language and what effects they expect from their hearers/readers. In semantics you ask, “what does gyp mean? But in pragmatics the question is “what do you mean by gyp?” So the focus of pragmatics is the user rather than the linguistic code.
CONCLUSION
We can see that interest in the study of the nature of meaning is not just a linguistic affair, but a concern that cuts across disciplines. This explains why earlier studies of meaning began with philosophers (e.g. Charles Morris and Carnap). It is interesting to note that the search for both linguistic and social meanings is an ongoing activity and the results of these studies have further thrown significant light on the true nature of meaning.
Semantics which is often described as the study of “the meaning of meaning” has been so extended to include these interesting studies from which pragmatics is, as a matter of fact, apart. It is therefore difficult to discuss the origin of pragmatics without reference to semantics. It is by a thorough understanding of semantics that the functional meaning of pragmatics emerges especially if we view pragmatics as an extension of semantic (or linguistic) meaning to contextual and user-based meaning.
