Pragmatics is one of the most broad-ranging and controversial philosophical traditions. Very broadly it understands knowing the world as inseparable from acting within it. This has spawned an equally broad range of interpretations, from the very specific (that philosophical concepts should be subject to scientific testing, that claims are true only if they have useful consequences) to the very general (that articulate language rests on a deep bed of cultural practice, and so is inexpressibly opaque).
Unlike Syntax, which studies sentences and Propositions, Pragmatics studies communication contexts. Thus, the defining feature of pragmatics is its focus on context. This makes pragmatics a very diverse field, with different theorists focusing on very different properties of utterances and contexts.
The most important strand in pragmatics is probably that of the late Paul Grice. He authored the Gricean Maxims, four basic pragmatic rules that seem to hold for most conversations and most languages: 1. Be understood. 2. Be concise. 3. Be truthful. 4. Be relevant.
There are also a number of other notable pragmatists, such as Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) and William James (1842-1910). These ‘classical pragmatists’ focused upon inquiry, meaning and the nature of truth, and orientated their philosophy towards issues of social improvement. This was most clearly expressed in the work of Jane Addams (1859-1935), whose pioneering social worker career demonstrated pragmatist ideals.
More recently, a new generation of philosophers has turned back to the pragmatist tradition. Richard Rorty’s bold and iconoclastic attacks on mainstream epistemology birthed a so-called neopragmatism, and the pragmatist ideals of objectivity have been championed by a number of prominent contemporary figures, including Hilary Putnam and Robert Brandom.
Other pragmatists have embraced the notion of ‘context’ as a key property of utterances and contexts. In particular, they have emphasized the role of the speaker’s plan (a hierarchy of intentions) in determining what kind of meaning an utterance has. This approach has come to be known as critical pragmatism. It is a form of far-side pragmatics, and arguably represents the closing of the ‘classic pragmatist period’, and a transition to linguistic and psychological pragmatics.
