Talk:Pragmatics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theoretical linguistics and theories of language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Vague name references
- According to Morris, Pragmatics tries to understand ...
Which Morris is referred to here? Do we have an article on him/her? Can we put his/her full name here and link to the article? --Jim Henry 18:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Some google searching on my part suggests this probably refers to someone named Charles Morris. There's also the question of who "Leech" and "Sperber and Wilson" are. These are probably references to specific works of theirs and it would be nice to know which those were as well. --Taak 21:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pragmatics != pragmatism
Pragmatics is a philosophical movement founded by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James - this article seems more than a little confused. Steven Zenith 01:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are you sure you aren't thinking of pragmatism, Steven? -Seth Mahoney 06:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Seth's right. Pragmatism is the philosophical movement - I am not sure what confused me here. Someone editing this page might consider relating pragmatics, to logic, syntax and semantics - and adding an explanation of pragmatics in the context of Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. --Steven Zenith 08:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moves and merges
Shouldn't the co-operative principle and conversational maxims pages be integrated? --shudder 20:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, maybe they should be; there's a lot of redundancy between them. But which should be the primary article into which the other article's content is merged?
- Also, I suspect that Implication (pragmatics) might should be moved to Implicature. If you knows more about this than I do (as you probably do), please comment on Talk:Implication (pragmatics). --Jim Henry | Talk 18:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, it really shouldn't. Grice's theory is only ONE pragmatics theory, and furthermore one considered outdated by many. The articles should certainly be linked, but definitely not merged into one - otherwise we'd also have to merge in Relevance Theory, Speech Acts, and all other pragmatics topics. It'd become unmanagable. Yamx 00:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
the speech act link at the bottom of the page seems a little outt place. Kɔffeedrinksyou 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why? Speeach Act Theory is definitely a topic in Pragmatics - or wasn't that what you meant? Yamx 00:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Someone put that a pragmatist scholar was poke-master at the top of the origins section. I dont know what it said before that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sjcarlin (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
