PRAGMATICS: MEANING IN A

CONTEXT, ROLE AND TYPES OF

CONTEXTS: GROUP # 01
SUBMITTED TO: MA`AM FATIMA NOSHEEN
BUSHRA HIRA MASOOD KHAN
AHMED ZAWAR
 FATIMA NOSHEEN
MS20241
TOPIC: PRAGMATICS, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRAGMATICS AND
SEMANTICS, AND DEFINITION OF CONTEXT.
 What is pragmatics?

Definition of Pragmatics:

Pragmatics is the study of relationship between words and uses of the words. It is all about the

interpretations about the words and its utterances and about trying to read what people means

by their utterances. It can be defined as,

“Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies how context affects the meaning of

language. More specifically, pragmatics investigates how people use language in different

situations to convey meaning beyond the literal meaning of words.”

The term pragmatics was coined in 1930`s by the philosopher C.W.Morris. Pragmatics was

developed as a subfield of linguistics in 1970`s. it deals with matters such as the taking of turns

in conversation, text organization, presupposition etc. It focuses on what is not explicitly stated

and on how one interprets utterances in situational contexts. It is concerned not so much with

sense of what is said but with what is communicated by the manner and style of an utterance.

Pragmatics deals with a wide range of linguistic phenomena, such as presupposition,

implicature, deixis, speech acts, and conversational implicature. For example, pragmatics helps

explain how speakers can convey different meanings with the same words in different contexts,

how they can imply things without explicitly stating them, and how they can use language to

perform actions such as making requests or giving orders.

Pragmatics is important because it helps us understand how language is used in social

interactions and how it can vary depending on the context. It can also shed light on how

misunderstandings or miscommunications can arise when people don't share the same

pragmatic knowledge or when there are differences in cultural norms and expectations.
Four Dimensions of Pragmatics:

George Yule, in his book "Pragmatics" identifies four dimensions of pragmatics.

Firstly, pragmatics is the study of speaker`s intended meaning. Pragmatics is concerned with

the study of meaning as communicated by a 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 what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. For

instance,

Speaker: “May I have a glass of water?”

Listener: Should understand that the wants to say, “he is thirsty”.

Secondly, pragmatics is the study of contextual 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`re talking to, where, when, and under what circumstances.

For instance,

John: Hi, how are you?

George: Ah, lovely weather today.

Although the response of George is grammatically correct, but it doesn’t fit in the context.

Thirdly, pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than is said. This approach

also necessarily explores how listeners can make inferences about what is said on order to

arrive at an interpretation of the speaker`s intended meaning. This type of study explores how

a great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated. In this dimension

the listener investigates the invisible meaning. For instance,

Speaker: “Please close the window.”

 Listener: Should investigate the invisible meaning according to surrounding. If outside
window there is too much noise, then the speaker through above utterance wants to say,
“there is too much noise outside”.

Lastly, pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance. This dimension is

explored by the physical and social closeness between the speaker and the listener that

determines how much need to be said. Closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual,

implies shared experience. On the assumption of how close or distant the listener is, speaker

determines how much needs to be said.

John: “We had fun in that weekend.”

George: Because of their closeness, he will know what fun John is talking about and which
weekend he is referring to.

Difference between Semantics and Pragmatics:

Semantics is the study of meaning, while Pragmatics is the study of meaning in a certain context

(study of context). Semantics attempts to relate meanings to logic and truth, and deals with

meaning as a matter primarily of sense-relations within the language. Pragmatics attempts to

relate meanings to context of utterance; it views language as action which is performed by

speakers. Pragmatics is the study of meaning of words, phrases, and full sentences, but unlike

semantics which deals with the objective meanings of words that can be found in dictionaries,

pragmatics is more concerned with the contextual meanings that words in fact convey when

they are used, or with intended meaning of speakers. Semantics is concerned with the word and

sentence meaning, pragmatics entails utterance meaning. A word or a sentence can be analysed

independently without considering their context. An utterance can be defined as a word or

sentence which is uttered by a speaker. So, an utterance is always considered in a context.

Pragmatics attempts to analyse how an utterance is communicated. Hence it investigates the

contribution of context to meaning. Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics as

outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has

an analysable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics

rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of

langue. The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the

speaker’s intent. As defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity: a string of words

divorced from non-linguistic context, as opposed to an utterance, which is a concrete example

of a speech act in a specific context. The more closely conscious subjects stick to common

words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can guess their meaning; the

further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in

interpretations. That suggests that sentences do not have intrinsic meaning, that there is no

meaning associated with a sentence or word, and that either can represent an idea only

symbolically. ‘The cat sat on the mat’ is a sentence in English. If someone were to say to

someone else, ‘The cat sat on the mat’, the act is itself an utterance. That implies that a sentence,

term, expression, or word cannot represents a single true meaning; such meaning is

underspecified (which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. By contrast, the

meaning of an utterance can be inferred through knowledge of both its linguistic and non-

linguistic contexts (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). Semantics

studies coding mechanism when denotative meanings are focused whereas pragmatics is

related to inferential and mental mechanism. These “coding” processes include both encoding

and decoding. So, pragmatics studies connotative meanings. Semantics knowledge is context

independent whereas, pragmatics knowledge is context dependent.

What is context:

Context in pragmatics includes the place (where the thing is said), the person (who says it), and

the things (that are talked about). It also includes how people speak. It is the interrelated
conditions in which something (utterances) exits or occurs. It can be considered as a situational

and social factor that effect the meaning. Therefore, pragmatics major focus in on how the

meaning of an utterance’s changes with the change in context. Moreover, it deals with how the

context modifies and alter the meaning.

 AHMED ZAWAR
MS20238
TOPIC: ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT:
 Role and Importance of Context

Context has a vital role to play in communication observing that the meaning of an utterance

is determined in context stating the obvious. Context plays an important role in determining

meaning in communication. Therefore, separate words and sentences alone are not sufficient

for communication. Nothing better demonstrates the importance of context than the variety of

definitions of a single word found in dictionaries and online. In communication, the

information provided by the context and linguistic utterance are exchangeable; the more

information that is provided by context, the less information is required in the utterance.

Consider this simple example of the word “take” used in sentences and how the word changes

meaning depending on the whole utterance or sequence of the words.

• Take one they are free.

• Take me I am yours.

• Take a bath.

Take means one thing in the sentence “Take one, they ‘re free” another thing in “Take a bath”

and something altogether different when “Take me, I ‘m yours!” is shouted on a movie set. So,

the meaning of a word such as “take” appears to rely on the context of the sentence in which it

occurs. This was how context changed the meaning of a word but context not only changes the

meaning of a word but rather the whole sentence, take this example of a sentence “There is a

lot of energy stored here” If this utterance is said by a tour guide passing by a hydro dam then

the sentence would mean something else but if a psychic produces the same utterance then the

same sentence would change its meaning into something completely different. Successful

communication is assured when the hearer properly interprets the information contained in the

words. The hearer’s knowledge of the speaker, environment, and circumstances also matters a
lot when interpreting a meaning. The circumstances are "the time and place, the people

involved, their background, their relationship to one another, and what they know about one

another”. Knowing the goal of a context permits an appropriate interpretation of a text.

John Rupert Firth, an English linguist emphasized the role of context by stating that.

“I suggest that voices should not be disassociated from the social context in which they

function”.

A context of the situation brings into relation the following categories.

• The verbal and nonverbal actions of participants.

• The relevant objects.

• The effect of action.

To explain the above statement, consider the two examples.

Example (A) where the speaker is a young mother, the listener is her mother-in-law, and the

situation is that both are watching the young mother two ear old play in a park and the mother-

in-law states that her son (the child’s father) was very backward at this age to which the young

mother replies “I do think Adam’s quick”.

Example (B) where the speaker is a young student and the listener is a bunch of other students,

the situation is that a student makes a joke, everyone laughs except Adam and one of the

students says, “I do think Adam’s quick”.

In each case, phonological prominence is placed on Adam. In both cases, the speaker says of

Adam that he is quick. It is clear, however, that the utterance in the context of the situation in

which they are cited, would be taken to convey very different messages. In “A” Adam has been
compared with his father favourably, in “B” he is compared with other students in an

unfavourable way.

In “A” quick means quick to develop whilst in “B” quick means the level of understanding but

that is not it. In “B” the context also tells us that the student intentionally lied to be sarcastic.

David Hyme, another linguist. Hyme views the role of context, on the one hand, limiting the

range of possible interpretations and on the other, justifying the intended interpretation. For

example, polysemous words like “bank”, or “head” etc. Consider the following words “BP”

now they might mean different things to different people. For instance, For K-pop fans, this

could mean “Black Pink” as in the famous Korean girl band. For a gamer, this could mean a

“battle pass”, and for a doctor, the same words could mean “blood pressure”. Without any

context, the word can be interpreted freely but if used in a particular context, the meaning

would be specified. If someone says they attended the “BP” concert would not mean they went

to a “battle pass” or a “blood pressure” concert. It would mean that they went to a “Black Pink”

concert. This is how context limits the possible interpretations and justifies the intended one.

Role of context:

Context plays a major role in many fields, like literary theory, psychology, linguistics,

philosophy, anthropology, and many others. Here the focus will be psychology and linguistics,

cognitive linguistics to be precise.

In psychology, context plays a major role because a person's mind is assessed on the situation

or the context that person places themselves in. For instance, if a psychologist asks someone to

define themselves their focus will be to observe the placement of “I” mean how the person

defines themselves. If a person says “I tried but I failed” or “I am a failure” both utterances

convey a different meaning based on the context. The first one gives a more positive expression

while the other one seems completely hopeless.

It is a major claim in Cognitive Linguistics that words do not contain meanings. Instead, we

use words as mere instructions to construct the meaning of a linguistic expression. Therefore,

meaning is not compositional, so the meaning of an utterance cannot be reduced to the addition

of the meaning of its parts, or words. For a simple explanation, consider the following sentence.

• Orange is the new black.

It is a quite straightforward sentence, very simple syntactically and its words are quite common

but still, it cannot be interpreted by the mere addition of the meaning of the parts. When trying

to make sense of this sentence, hearers do not go through a list of possible meanings of orange

or black.

Instead, hearers try to understand the sentence, and to do so, they probably search in their

memory for a previous experience where this sentence could fit, a situation where the orange

color could become black for some reason. Therefore, the key here is not the lack of a stored

meaning, but the lack of a proper context. As soon as the place, text, or situation to which this

sentence could belong is found, you would have the key to construct its meaning.
 HIRA MASOOD KHAN

MS20253

TOPIC: CONTEXT AND ITS TYPES:

 Context and its types

What is context?

Context in pragmatics refers to the situational and social factors that influence the meaning and

interpretation of language. It includes the physical environment, the speaker's intentions, the

listener's expectations, and the social and cultural norms of the community in which the

communication takes place.

Context is crucial in determining the meaning of utterances because words and phrases can

have different interpretations depending on the context in which they are used. For example,

the meaning of the sentence "I'm thirsty" can be interpreted differently depending on the

context. In a restaurant, it may be a request for water, while on a hike, it may mean a request

for a drink of any kind.

Understanding context is essential in communication because it helps to ensure that the

intended meaning is conveyed and that misunderstandings are avoided.

How is context related to pragmatics?

Context and pragmatics are closely related because context plays a crucial role in the

interpretation of language in communication, and pragmatics is the study of how language is

used in context.

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of the meaning of language in use, beyond its literal or

grammatical meaning. It examines how context, knowledge, and social factors affect the

interpretation and use of language. In other words, pragmatics is concerned with how people

use language in social interactions to convey meaning, and how the meaning is dependent on

the context in which it is used.

Context provides the situational background that helps us interpret and understand the intended

meaning of a communication act. It includes factors such as the speaker's and the listener's

background knowledge, the physical and social environment, the timing and purpose of the

communication act, and the relationship between the speaker and the listener.

For example, consider the sentence "Can you close the window?" The literal meaning of the

sentence is a simple question about the listener's ability to perform the action of closing the

window. However, the pragmatic meaning of the sentence can vary depending on the context

in which it is used. If the sentence is said in a cold room, the pragmatic meaning may be a

request to close the window to keep the room warm. On the other hand, if the sentence is said

in a noisy room, the pragmatic meaning may be a polite request for the listener to close the

window to reduce the noise.

Therefore, context and pragmatics are closely related because context provides the situational

background necessary for the interpretation of the intended meaning of a communication act,

and pragmatics is concerned with the study of how language is used in context to convey

meaning.

Types of contexts:

Context in pragmatics included the place, the person, and the things. It also includes how

people speak. There are four types of contexts in pragmatics. (Panevova and Hana, 2011)

1. Physical context

2. Epistemic context

3. Linguistic context

4. Social context.
Explanation:

1. Physical context:

This encompasses what is physically present around the speakers/hearers at time of

communication. What objects are visible, where the communication is taking place, what is

going on around, etc. for example,

a. I want that book. (Accompanied by pointing)

b. Be here at 7:00 in the morning. (Place/time reference)

In pragmatics, physical context refers to the environmental and situational factors that influence

the meaning of language. These factors include the location, time, setting, and participants in

a communication event. Physical context is important because it provides additional

information that can help to clarify the meaning of language and make communication more

effective.

• Location: The location of a communication event can influence the meaning of

language. For example, if someone says "I'm freezing" in a cold, snowy environment,

the physical context suggests that they are referring to the cold temperature. However,

if someone says "I'm freezing" in a hot, humid environment, the physical context

suggests that they are using the term metaphorically to describe their emotional state.

• Time: The time of a communication event can also affect the meaning of language. For

instance, if someone says "I'm tired" at 11 pm, the physical context suggests that they

are referring to a physical fatigue due to the late hour. In contrast, if they say "I'm tired"

at 11 am, the physical context suggests that they are more likely referring to a lack of

energy rather than the time of day.

 • Setting: The setting of a communication event can also influence the interpretation of

language. For example, if someone says "I'm in a rush" in a crowded airport, the

physical context suggests that they need to hurry to catch a flight. However, if they say

"I'm in a rush" in a quiet library, the physical context suggests that they may need to

leave quickly to attend to an urgent matter.

• Participants: The participants in a communication event can also affect the meaning of

language. For instance, if a doctor says to a patient "you should exercise more", the

physical context suggests that they are offering medical advice. However, if a personal

trainer says the same thing to a client, the physical context suggests that they are

providing fitness coaching.

In conclusion, physical context is a crucial aspect of language interpretation that affects how

we understand meaning in communication. By considering the location, time, setting, and

participants in a communication event, we can better understand the intended meaning of

language and communicate more effectively.

2. Epistemic context:

It involves knowledge and beliefs of the speaker/hearer e.g., the background knowledge shared

between the interlocutors. For example:

a. Can you believe it? It’s so terrifying.

b. She’s a true friend. Don’t you think so?

Epistemic context is a term used in pragmatics to refer to the knowledge, beliefs, and

assumptions that speakers share or assume their listeners share in a particular communicative

situation. It refers to the background knowledge that is necessary for understanding a particular
utterance, such as the speaker's intentions, assumptions about the listener's knowledge, and

shared cultural knowledge.

Here are four examples that illustrate the importance of epistemic context in communication:

Example 1: Imagine that you are watching a news broadcast with a friend. The anchor says,

"The president resigned today." The meaning of this sentence depends on the epistemic context.

If you and your friend have been following the news closely, you might assume that the anchor

is referring to the president of your country. However, if you have just turned on the TV and

have no prior knowledge of current events, you might assume that the anchor is referring to a

different president.

Example 2: Consider the sentence, "I'm freezing." The meaning of this sentence depends on

the epistemic context. If the speaker is standing outside in the snow and shivering, it is likely

that they mean they are literally cold. However, if the speaker is inside a warm room and

wearing a jacket, they might mean that they are feeling anxious or uncomfortable.

Example 3: Imagine that you are at a party, and someone says, "I think I saw John at the grocery

store yesterday." The meaning of this sentence depends on the epistemic context. If you know

who John is and have had recent interactions with him, you might assume that the speaker is

referring to the same John. However, if you don't know who John is or have never met him,

you might assume that the speaker is referring to a different John.

Example 4: Consider the sentence, "I'm going to the store." The meaning of this sentence

depends on the epistemic context. If the speaker is standing in front of a grocery store, it is

likely that they mean they are going inside. However, if the speaker is standing in front of a

hardware store, they might mean that they are going to a different store. Similarly, if the speaker

is in a different country and using a different language, the word "store" might have a different

meaning altogether.
Overall, the epistemic context plays a crucial role in communication, as it allows speakers to

convey their intended meaning and listeners to interpret that meaning correctly. Understanding

the epistemic context requires an awareness of the shared knowledge and assumptions that

underlie communication in a particular setting.

3. Linguistic context:

It includes what has been said before in the conversation. For instance:

a. I can’t believe you said that.

b. If my mom heard you talk like that, she’d wash your mouth with soap!

Another example would be,

a. Linda came home late yesterday. She thought no one would notice it.

b. I don’t like to be associated with her and you know it.

4. Social context:

The social relationship of people involved in communication. For example:

a. Hey! Don’t be a fool. (You can talk like this to your friend.)

b. I, do, hereby humbly request that you please telephone me when you get the letter. (A

peculiar sentence if said to a friend instead of saying ‘Call me when you get the letter’.)

c. To Mr. President: Mr. President, stop bugging me and go home.

d. To your friend: I do hereby humbly request you that you might endeavour to telephone

me with the news of your arrival at your domicile when such arrival occurs. (Better to say,

‘Inform me when you get home’.)

In conclusion, there are different aspects of context that influence the understanding of words

and determine the meanings of words in accordance with the relation to the context.
 REFRENCES

Grundy, Peter. Hodder Arnold Publication: Doing Pragmatics (3rd Edition). Routledge, p 2.

http://site.ebrary.com/id/10400377?ppg=2

Traugott E. C. & R. B. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Porto.U.(2009). The Role of Context in Word Meaning Construction: A Case Study.

International Journal of English Studies 7(1). 106018/4899/

Panevova.J and Hana. J. (2011). Intro to Linguistics – Pragmatics.

https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/2453

https://www.thoughtco.com/pragmatics-language-1691654

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27338682_The_role_of_context_in_word_meaning

_construction_a_case_study