Language

I have a question concerning the relation between "semantics" and "pragmatics". I know that there is disagreement among philosophers about what that relation is, but I hope my question does not concern debated issues. As far as I know, "semantics" concerns something like the meaning of words taken by themselves, while "pragmatics" concerns how we use words for our purposes and how we react to other people's uses of words. Now, apart from societies where there are linguists and dictionaries, I think that in social and psychological reality language is nothing more than our uses of words and our reactions to the uses of words by other people. My question is: what is there left for semantics?

Comments

Good question. I have qualms about your claim that in societies lacking linguists and dictionaries, language is nothing more than our uses of words and our reactions to those uses by others. However, I think we can leave those qualms aside and assume this is correct. Even so, the aforementioned uses and reactions would not be possible unless the words and more complex expressions of which they're composed themselves possessed semantic value. Lacking that, utterances and inscriptions would perhaps have "expressive" value as some birdsong does, but it wouldn't mean anything beyond that. Let me illustrate this. Suppose I remark on the fact that you finally show up to a meeting on time by saying, "You're on time!" Here I've expressed surprise or delighted about your unexpected punctuality, but that pragmatic effect, which is not part of the literal meaning is my words, is only possible because of that literal meaning. If I had remarked on the redness of the carpet or the height of the clouds, that wouldn't have conveyed a suggestion about your punctuality. The upshot, then, seems to be that "use" is only possible in the context of established meaning, and that is semantics.

Read another response by Mitch Green

Read another response about Language