Author name:
حليم موسى كاظم
Supervisor name:
محمد عبد كاظم
Abstract:
In the seventies of the previous century, linguistics of discourse emerged in reaction to Ferdinand de Saussure's linguistic theories, especially his dichotomies, which studied the internal core of language and neglected “speaking,” i.e. the use of language. De Saussure considered “speaking” as an outsider from the domain of language and this is why he was considered as the father of formalism. Then, linguists shifted their attention to studying the practical facet of ordinary language; i.e. language used in social, historical, cultural, ceremonial, and doctrinal contexts. Accordingly, pragmatics appeared in the second half of the twentieth century.Pragmatics is a philosophical theory that focuses on the principle of use, advantage, and materialism. Though it was theorized by philosophers of different orientations, it is established due to the theories of the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and the additions of Charles Morris. However, it becomes clearer in the studies of ordinary language philosophers who are labeled as the Philosophers of Oxford; a group of philosophers who were influenced by Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein's Analytic Philosophy. Wittgenstein also influenced John Austin who attempted to refute the logical binary of saying truth and lying in judging things. Ordinary language philosophers considered language as a means to describe, amend, and change reality. Then, they regarded it as a tool that does linguistic performances. This tendency was adopted by some philosophers after Austen. Paul Grice presented his theory of conversation and interaction rules in addition to cooperative principle among speakers. John Searle, then, completed Austin's theory and developed Speech Act Theory, i.e. how to perform deeds via language using performative verbs.In this study, the researcher has chosen this area of study for its importance in analyzing discourses since analysis previously focused on exploring and deconstructing the internal core of language. This study, being a contemporary one, serves as a link with modern linguistic thoughts and products which open the door for studying Arabic, especially in old sources, because studying the books of old Arabs would show that they had used pragmatic mechanisms theoretically and practically in notion but not in term. This appears in their devotion to the context in which the Holy Quran was descended and the speaker's intentions when they spoke about the difference between utterance and concept. Besides, their studies encompass other epistemological fields such as eloquence, philosophy … etc. This study aims at exploring the mechanisms used for analyzing a pragmatic discourse. In other words, it aims at studying language in context and use.To achieve this aim, the study is divided into four chapters and a conclusion. In Chapter One, a definition is given to the main terms of the title; i.e. discourse, discourse analysis, and pragmatics. Also, an opinion of some researchers about the term “discourse” is presented. Defining “discourse analysis” says much about the concept of analysis and the shift from analyzing the linguistic structure into analyzing the circumstances in which it is said; i.e. speaker, listener, time, place, channel of commutation, context … etc. Similarly, defining pragmatics says much about its different analyzing mechanisms, its diverse theories, and the influence of other areas of knowledge upon it. In Chapter Two, Speech Act Theory is explained. Also, verbs are received a classification and a study is conducted about analyzing the pragmatic meaning. In Chapter Three, the mechanisms used to analyze meaning in the light of Paul Grice's Theory of Conversation are detailed. Also, an explanation is given about levels of discourse, its intentions, presupposition, and conversational implicature. Finally, in Chapter Four, the basic functions of pragmatic discourse, among them are communicative function, contextual function, argumentational function, are discussed. It is worth mentioning that argumentation is a pragmatic theory that has nothing to do with Aristotle's logical argumentation which is related to old eloquence in addition to speeches, and entered into the domain of linguistic study thanks to Oswald Ducrot's researchers.Finally, the conclusion sums up the following conclusions : - The pragmatic mechanisms in analyzing a discourse are an extended pattern which aims at exploring the performative meanings and intentions depending upon shared knowledge among speakers and social contexts. They also aim at exploring customs, doctrines, and ceremonies. - Language cannot perform actions by itself. In other words, it does not have the performative ability because the matter is related to man and his personal action. Hence, language is just a means for performance
