The pragmatic analysis makes the ground fertile to know the basics of content analysis with the specific issues that arise in using language in different contexts and situations.
A linguistic approach differs from the way of understanding of the listener and the way of speaking of it in the different contexts. From a pragmatic perspective, considering the particular interactive strategies and the social meaning generated in the content analysis in its original sense studies the relationship between linguistic signs and speaker, these phenomena should be understood as the result of speakers’ adaptation to changing socio-cultural circumstances. The pragmatic study in formation of the concepts and while analyzing the contents helps to understand the linguistic economy with different perspectives and layers of linguistic approach towards it to modify with variety of contexts. Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which studies how utterances communicate meaning in context.
The study of meaning is commonly known as ‘semantics’ and it has long been one of the most daunting and difficult areas of language study. However, the linguists and philosophers in the decades of 1950s and 1960s attempted to distinguish two quite different aspects of meaning in pragmatic analysis. The first type of meaning is intrinsic to a linguistic expression containing it, and it cannot be separated from the expression. The study of this kind of meaning is the domain of semantics.
But there is a second kind of meaning, one which is not intrinsic to the linguistic expression carrying it, but which rather results from the interaction of the linguistic expression with the ‘context’ in which it is used. And to the study of this kind of meaning we give a new name—pragmatics.The contextualization of language has been traditionally carried out from a structural perspective (synchronic or diachronic), from a sociolinguistic perspective and/or from a rather psychological perspective, centered on the linguistic and communicative competence of the multilingual individual. However, a great number of linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches form the specific content analysis as per the situations which may be effectively tackled from a pragmatic viewpoint. The pragmatic perspectives pinpoint the linguistic use in communication and contexts at a different level posing questions to deal with the different arena and the intentions, predications, assumptions and possibilities.In pragmatics, we focus only on a spoken language, conversation or how people speak or express their desire when they communicate with others.
People express their feelings, desires, point of views and variety of things about their culture, society and so on. But sometimes they have many desires which they do not express or unable to express and there can be variety of reasons for that, for example, fear, inferiority, insult, etc. Pragmatics tries to study human beings at their characterization, feelings, needs, attitudes, volition or volatile personality and many other things through language. Therefore, pragmatics is the study of language used by real people in the real context. According to David Crystal (professor of linguistics at the University of Wales) in the book, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics: ‘Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication’ (Crystal, 1985:240). Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. Every context has a special meaning and it is the context which decides meaning. So meaning is determined by the relative quality of language used and the intention of speaker to hearer.
According to Geoffrey N. Leech in A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, he says: The pragmatic analysis of language can be broadly understood to be the investigation into the aspect of meaning which is derived not from the formal properties of words and constructions, but from the way in which utterances are used how they relate to the context in which they are uttered’ (Leech, 1987:290). An individual when communicate, he/she makes use of utterance. It may or may not be sentence.
Whatever is uttered by an individual is an utterance. Every utterance becomes meaningful to the listener. And therefore, no utterance is meaningless, every utterance is meaningful. If we look at the word ‘utterance’ the basics word is ‘utter,’ which is the root word. To utter something is an indigenous process. This process is an act of making sense. It refers both to the process of utterance and the product of uttering.
When we talk about a sentence, it is a unit of grammatical process. In sentence, we refer to unit of analysis where as in utterance; we talk about unit of interactions. Normally we make a distinction between utterance and non-utterance. Non-utterance is a kind of sound of without any meaning, sometimes refers to the non-verbal elements of communication used to modify meaning and convey emotion. It may be expressed consciously or unconsciously, for example, sometimes ‘silence’ becomes meaningful. Other examples of non-utterance signals are, such as gestures, facial expressions, eye contact with the listener, and so on.
Therefore, utterance is the process of communication, for example, a person’s sigh is an indication of his or her relief that is the person wants some relaxation because of tiredness. The sound “shhh…” indicates that somebody is caught. A silence or pause or zero sound is also an utterance where silence becomes meaningful. The certain expressions or indications suddenly appear on a person’s face, when that person gets angry or happy. Therefore, pragmatics studies the expression of one’s personality, behavior, feeling and so on.
It shows and also hides one’s characterization or nature. Every time the context changes,