Name : Afifah Viola Rezki
NIM : 23018144
Reading Report – week 10
1. Introduction: The “Waste-Basket” View of Pragmatics
The article opens by addressing the problematic perception of pragmatics as a “waste-basket”
category in linguistics—a place where analysts place everything that cannot be neatly
explained by other linguistic subfields like phonology, syntax, or semantics. This label suggests
that pragmatics is a vague and disorganized collection of leftover topics. Verschueren argues
that this view is misleading and undermines the theoretical significance of pragmatics. He sets
out to clarify what pragmatics actually is and to advocate for its status as a coherent and
essential component of linguistic theory.
2. The Definition and Scope of Pragmatics
This section focuses on what pragmatics is. Rather than accepting it as an undefined cluster of
issues, Verschueren defines pragmatics as the study of language use in context. It is concerned
with how language is adapted in actual communicative situations. This includes how meaning
is influenced by speaker intention, hearer interpretation, social roles, physical setting, and more.
Crucially, pragmatics deals with language as a form of behavior—something people do and
adapt according to their needs. This focus on adaptability gives pragmatics its unifying
framework.
3. The “Dumping Ground” Phenomenon
Here, the author explains why pragmatics was historically treated as a dumping ground.
Traditional linguistic theories focused on language as an abstract system—formalist and
structuralist approaches paid little attention to meaning in context. As a result, any linguistic
phenomenon that couldn’t be handled within syntactic or semantic theories—like deixis,
speech acts, presuppositions, or conversational implicatures—was excluded and labeled
“pragmatic,” often without theoretical integration. Pragmatics became the category for
everything “messy” or “unmanageable.”
4. Reframing Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation
Verschueren proposes a new way of thinking about pragmatics—as a theory of linguistic
adaptation. This means seeing pragmatics not as a secondary add-on to linguistic theory, but as
a foundation that explains how people shape their language choices in response to contextual
demands. Language is not static; it is flexible and used strategically. Pragmatics, then, should
be seen as the study of the negotiation of meaning—how speakers and hearers manage form,
content, and context to achieve communication goals.
5. Speech Acts and the Importance of Function
The article discusses the role of speech act theory in pragmatics. According to Austin and Searle,
utterances do more than state facts—they perform actions (e.g., promising, requesting,
warning). Understanding speech acts helps illustrate how pragmatic meaning goes beyond
literal content. Pragmatics must account for illocutionary force (what the speaker intends to do
with an utterance) and perlocutionary effect (how it affects the listener), both of which are
essential to real-world language use.
6. Implicature and Inference
This section addresses implicature—a key concept in pragmatics developed by Grice.
Implicature involves meaning that is suggested rather than directly stated, and is based on
shared assumptions between speaker and hearer. For example, if someone says, “Some of the
students passed,” it may imply that not all did—even though that isn’t explicitly said.
Implicatures rely on conversational maxims (e.g., relevance, quantity), and they demonstrate
how listeners infer meaning from what is left unsaid. This reinforces that meaning is not fully
encoded in words but emerges through use and context.
7. Deixis, Presupposition, and Contextual Dependency
Pragmatics also handles deixis—context-bound expressions like “this,” “that,” “here,” and
“now”—and presupposition, which refers to background assumptions speakers make (e.g.,
“John stopped smoking” presupposes that he once smoked). These elements highlight how
linguistic meaning depends on context and shared knowledge, further proving that a formal,
context-free theory of language is incomplete. Pragmatics provides tools to analyze these
dependencies systematically.
8. Towards a Unified Theory of Pragmatics
Verschueren suggests that instead of resisting the diversity of topics in pragmatics, we should
embrace it through a unifying theory of adaptation. The apparent messiness of pragmatics is
not a weakness but a reflection of the complexity of language use. He argues that linguists must
integrate pragmatic insights into mainstream linguistic theory rather than treating them as
marginal. By doing so, we get a fuller picture of how communication works—not just in theory,
but in practice.
9. Conclusion: Reclaiming Pragmatics
In the conclusion, Verschueren insists that pragmatics must no longer be seen as a “waste-
basket” discipline. It is not a mere collection of leftovers but a vital perspective for
understanding how language functions in the real world. Pragmatics explains how speakers
adapt, negotiate, and manage meaning. As such, it provides a comprehensive framework that
connects linguistic forms with communicative functions. Far from being marginal, pragmatics
is central to understanding language as human action.
