Post Gricean Pragmatics Essay

Often, we understand what is communicated to us, not by what we hear, but by what we see. This can be demonstrated in Albert Mehrebian’s Three Elements of Communication, that only 7% of what we understand comes from the words which are being used. 38 % is understood by the voice of the sender but an incredible 55 % of communication is done by body language. A tapping of the

The English language is particularly complex in almost all aspects. Many of the words in the English language have different meanings for the same word. This is not unlike the definition of the different levels of usage. McCrimmon defines the three levels, formal, moderate, and colloquial, by their sentence structure, diction, and tone (McCrimmon 193). ¹ Using McCrimmon’s definitions, authors can determine what type of writing is applicable to each of the three levels. For the formal writings, an adequate example of where readers can find it is in a professional journal, and an appropriate place to find an example of the moderate level is in a weekly news magazine. Also, the best place to look for an example of the colloquial level is in certain sections of the newspaper. All of the levels of usage apply to these different types of writings and assist in defining what each level involves.

Language, is a way for people to communicate and express their opinions between one another. Yet, another factor is important in engaging with language. This factor is the practice and context of certain words, used to emphasize opinions or generalizations. Through the accounts of Tannen, Sanders, and Hughes, the significance of certain words, and the many interpretations signaled by people of different perspectives, are discussed. The written texts centered around mostly the pragmatic aspect of language, the intentions of spoken or written expression.

Humans act toward people, things, and events on the basis of the meanings they assign to them. Once people define a situation as real, it has very real consequences. Without language there would be no thought, no sense of self, and no socializing presence of society within the individual. (Socio-cultural tradition)

process of receiving, constructing meaning from, and responding to spoken and/or nonverbal messages” (Verderber and

Interpreting and mental processing. Cokely (1992), Taylor (1993), and later Russell (2002) illustrate in their research dissertations that the interpreting process, from the source message to producing an equivalent interpretation in the target language (ASL or English), occurs in nanoseconds. Researchers who assess the impact on message accuracy within an interpretation further support the need for preparation to assist in the production of a dynamic equivalent interpreted message. The less an ASLI/TiE knows about a subject results in more time spent on attempting to understand the content and meaning, thus impacting the target language message. Napier and Barker (2004), explain ASLI/TiE’s “decontextualize each original utterance to a certain extent so that it is a separate unit and can be recontextualized as a new utterance in the ‘flow of talk’” (p. 373) as part of the mental interpreted process. In doing so effectively the

Scholars such as Jonson and Toulmin (1988) emphasized the centrality of argumentation in rhetorical interaction. In his publication entitled the ‘philosophy of rhetoric’ I.A Richards (1936:7-11) criticized the ‘proper meaning superstition’ and adopted different stand to that of the classical period where rhetoric was confined to persuasion, for him the study of meaning represent the backbone for the study of rhetoric. For I.A. Richards words can have various meanings and consequently will result in ambiguity of meaning.

It is difficult enough to interpret words accurately, in fact, there are no doubt more misinterpreted messages than not (Cherney and Tynan, 1990). When the element of nonverbal is incorporated, the rate of misinterpretations increases dramatically (Elgin, 1980).

In all communication events, unless there is a relationship between actions and words, the message can be wrongly interpreted. I observed a conversation between a bartender and a customer in busy and crowded bar. The customer wanted the buy one more double bourbon but the bartender refused to sell to him. This resulted in a series of communication theories, which will be analysed later.

Fairclough (1995) clarifies that discourse is not only written and spoken language, but it also visual part that has meaning (p.54).

When studying communication, there are certain assumptions to be made. These assumptions vary depending on the paradigm that the researcher is following. In the Interpretive Approach, the major assumption is that humans construct their own reality, and researchers must tap into and understand that reality. This could not be truer, as everyone has their own perception of the world around them and reality in general. It is also assumed that the focus will be on the communicator. The Interpretive Approach draws focus on the creativity of humans rather than our predictability. Following the

Scholars attribute that communication phenomenon involves the exchange of information from a communicator to the recipient. The exchange requires a contextual understanding of the message between the recipient and communicator. The message is usually encoded in the means of communication and has to be decoded by the recipient to understand. Subsequently, a phenomenon that is located in an interaction-oriented by a speaker to a recipient can be deemed as a communication phenomenon (Goldhaber,20). A common question that communication phenomenon scholars ask is that, how do people communicate? People communicate through talking and behavioral bodily gestures accompanying that talk. Talking is thus regarded as the primary

George Santayana described Pragmatism this way, “American pragmatism connects the American experimental and inventive attitude with older philosophical ideas” (Stumpf 397).

Our communication process or the way we attribute symbolic meanings to words and gestures, in order to express ourselves is shaped by the society in which we evolve. This shared use of codes within a given group of persons, also leads to a common philosophy of life, ideas or

In contemporary society the Standard variety of English is the most commonly used as it is respected and associated with a higher prestige. Its usage is also advocated by prescriptivists who believe that it is the ‘correct’ and only variety that should be used. Standard English is usually seen in formal settings, where its usage is necessary for official and public purposes. However, contextual factors play a vital role in determining the most appropriate variety to be used, which is supported by the Principle of Appropriateness. Certain contexts where a non-standard variety is necessary are in social media settings and in communities of different ethnicities, where they are undeniably required to create solidarity between speakers.