Pragmatics

Pragmatics  is concerned with the study of meaning as communicate by the speaker (or writer)  and interpreted by a listener (or reader).

It has,  consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their  utterances than the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by  themselves. Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.

This type of  study necessarily involves the interpretation of what people mean in a  particular context and how the context influences what is said. It requires a  consideration of how speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with  who they are talking to, where, when, and under what circumstances. Pragmatics is  the study of contextual meaning.

This  approach also necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what  is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speaker is intended  meaning. This type of study explores how a great deal of what is unsaid is  recognized as part of what is communicated.

We might say  that it is the investigation of invisible meaning. Pragmatics is the study of  how more gets communicated than is said.

This  perspective then raises the question of what determines the choice between the  said and the unsaid. The basic answer is tied to the notion of distance.  Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, implies shared  experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speakers  determine how much needs to be said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression  of relative distance. These are the four areas that pragmatics is concerned  with.

Pragmatics  is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of  those forms. In this three-part distinction, only pragmatics allows humans into  analysis. The advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk  about people is intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals,  and the kinds of actions (for example, requests) that they are performing when  they speak. The big disadvantage is that all these very human concepts are  extremely difficult to analyze in a consistent and objective way. Two friends  having a conversation may imply some things and infer some others without  providing any clear linguistic evidence that we can point to as the explicit  source of  the meaning  of what was communicated. Example (I) is just such a  problematic case. I heard the speakers, I knew what they said, but I had no idea  what was communicated.

( I ) Her:  So did you?

Him:  Hey who wouldnt?