A. Theory of Pragmatic
Pragmatics briefly is
as the cognitive, social, and cultural science of language and communication.
For the simplest possible terms what its basic task and its general domain of
inquiry are. Pragmatics does not deal with language as such but with language use
and the relationships between language form and language use. Obviously) using
language involves cognitive processes, taking place in a social world with a
variety of cultural constraints. Talking about cognitive process with a variety
of cultural constraints, there are two preliminary remarks have to be made by
people about this ‘making of choices’ as a basic intuition. Such as :
-
First, the term may misleadingly focus attention
exclusively on the production side of verbal behavior; it should be clear that
also interpreting involves the making of choices.
-
Second, choices are not necessarily either-or
decisions.
For
one thing, the language user is compelled to make choices, no matter whether
there are fully satisfactory choices available. Furthermore, many choices are
indeterminate in the sense that their meaning may be apparent only once they
are situated in the given cognitive, social, and cultural context.
Based on explanation
above we know that the scope of pragmatics is communication of socialization. A
number of traditions have contributed, individually and collectively to the
formation of the field of linguistic pragmatics. Here are some theories of
classical definition of 'pragmatics' by Morris (1938) “as the study of the
relationship between signs and their interpreters”.
Pragmatics as a
notion was born from an extremely ambitious project. It was in his attempt to
outline a unified and consistent theory of signs or semiotic, which would
embrace everything of interest to be said about signs by linguists, logicians,
philosophers, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, psychopathologists,
aestheticians or sociologists, that Morris proposed the following definition of
the field: “In terms of the three correlates (sign vehicle, designatum, interpreter)
of the triadic relation of semiotic, a number other dyadic maybe abstracted (or
study One may study the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs
are applicable. This relation will be called the semantical dimension of
semiosis ( ... ); the study of this dimension will be called semantic;. Or the
subject of study may be the relation of signs to interpreters. This relation
will be called the pragmatical dimension of semiosis ,( ... ) the study of
dimension will be named pragmatics”. (Morns 1938: 6).
This definition has
to be placed in the intellectual context of the emergence of semiotics as a
philosophical reflection on the 'meaning' of symbols. often triggered by the
use of symbols in science and hence related to developments in the philosophy
or theory of science but soon expanded to all other domains of activity
involving what Cassirer calls 'symbolical animals', i.e. . humans.
Winch (1958), whose
basic claim was that human behavior cannot be understood without access to the
concepts in terms of which those engaged in the behavior interpret it
themselves and that language provides the necessary clues to those concepts.[1]
Psychology and cognitive science had been involved all along.
Buhler's (1934)
theory of the psychology of language. Especially by means of the distinctions
it makes between various functions of language, has been directly or indirectly
present in most pragmatic thinking.
Based on the text
above we got the conclusion that pragmatic is formed by a number of traditions
have contributed, individually and collectively, and show how language is used
and of the effect of context on language. The
context are physical, linguistic and social.
Lihat Juga:
=> Defenition Of Pragmatics
=> Component And Perspective Of Pragmatics
[1] Jef Verschueren and Jan-Oia Ostman, Key Notion of Pragmatic, Jhon
Benjamin Publishing Company : Amsterdam, 2009, hal. 2-6.
No comments:
Post a Comment