Conclusion

Pragmatics as language in use

Pragmatics is broadly understood as the study of language in use. It has traditionally focused on what the speaker means by an utterance and what the hearer understands by it. From its inception it has been widely recognized that in order for hearers to figure out what speakers mean, they need to draw not only from the utterance itself but from aspects of the context in which the utterance arises. This has led, in turn, to a focus on a range of topics that are now considered core in pragmatics, including deixis, presupposition, (conversational) implicature, speech acts and, at least in our view, politeness. This set of topics is generally associated with the micro view approach to pragmatics, sometimes termed Anglo-American or linguistic pragmatics, where the focus has been on the relationships between linguistic units, the things they designate and users. From this viewpoint, pragmatics is conceptualized as a sub-field within linguistics, and so complements work in phonetics, phonology, morphology, grammar/ syntax and semantics towards a general theory of language.

An alternative account of pragmatics is that it analyses linguistic phenomena as they are actually used, and in that sense focuses more solidly on what people do with language (including non-verbal aspects) in social contexts. This macro approach to pragmatics, which encompasses a much broader set of topics that touches upon issues of identity, ideology, culture, the place of discourse in society and so on, is sometimes termed Continental European pragmatics. The latter broad treatment of pragmatics positions it as a superordinate field, to which disciplines such as linguistics, sociology and psychology all contribute as sub-fields.

The approach we have implicitly advocated has been carving out a middle path between these two broad conceptualizations of pragmatics. Lying at the heart, we think, an account of core topics of interest in the micro approach to pragmatics. However, we have approached these key pragmatic phenomena from a broader perspective that pays particular attention to the interactional and socio-cultural grounding of these phenomena. Indeed, the importance we place on the latter has led us to explicitly position this account of pragmatics in relation to the English language, rather than claiming, implicitly or otherwise, that what we are describing here applies universally across all languages. We have placed particular importance on how the understandings of participants are reliant on the concepts, distinctions and ways of thinking that the English language both affords and, at least to some extent, constrains (Goddard 2006; Wierzbicka 2003). The intuitive distinction in English between saying and implying is one such example, as is the distinction we make between saying1 in the sense of uttering, and saying2 in the sense of meaning, but there are numerous others that we have touched upon. This is not to say that we are endorsing a strong version of cultural determinism, but simply to point out that the ways in which we analyze the use of a particular language are influenced, in turn, by the language we use to analyze that language in use. In other words, we need to consider more seriously the place of observers, and the linguistic (and cultural) resources they use, when forming understandings of what particular linguistic units mean for users, that is, those people who are engaged in those instances of language in use. This has also led us to emphasize the importance of taking into account the awareness of participants themselves in relation to the interactive or communicative activities they are engaged in, and, in particular, the use of language which reflects such reflexive awareness. This metapragmatic perspective once again underscores the need to take more seriously the influence of the metalanguage drawn upon by those observers as well as the users themselves, which is, in the case, English for both users and observers. . To put it another way, we have been interested in this volume in working towards a pragmatics of English, by showing how an account of pragmatics developed primarily, although not solely, with reference to the use of English, can be applied to explaining English language in use.

We might add, on a final note, that we have been alluding to a dynamic tension between what might be broadly called first-order and second-order perspectives on pragmatics. A first-order perspective, as we mentioned in the introduction, is that of the participants themselves, the ones who are using language to mean and do things. A second-order perspective encompasses that of the analyst, including ourselves, the writers, and you, the readers. Pragmatics was traditionally rooted primarily in a second-order perspective, but has more recently undergone a shift towards a first-order perspective. In this volume, we have advocated neither exclusively. Instead, we have proposed a middle way that grounds the second-order theorization and analysis of pragmatic phenomena in the first-order perspective of participants as they arise in interaction. This is not to say that the aim of pragmatics should be to replicate such perspectives or to be constrained by them, but rather to suggest that any analysis should necessarily be informed by them. We have structured accordingly. We have outlined various theoretical perspectives on key phenomena of interest in pragmatics, and then suggested how these might be approached from an interactional perspective that takes into account the understandings of participants. In being informed by the understandings of participants our discussion has necessarily been tied to a particular language and cultural milieu, namely, that of English.

We briefly reflect upon some of the implications of the approach taken here, first, for the development of an integrative pragmatics, and second, for the study of the English language and pragmatics more broadly.