< previous page page_206 next page >

Page 206
geometry are not. We can use the figures of plane geometry to design, for instance, a parallelogram of forces that represents in some way some of the phenomena depending on gravity; but bodies, which are tridimensional, fall for reasons that plane geometry cannot explain. The bidimensional parallelogram of forces calculating the trajectory of a cannonball can only represent, as a diagram, a phenomenon that plane geometry must take for granted.
To say that pragmatics is a dimension of semiotics does not mean to devoid it of any object. On the contrary, it means that the pragmatic approach is concerned with the whole of semiosis, which, to be fully understood, must also be approached from a pragmatic point of view. Syntactics and semantics, when standing in a splendid isolation, becomeas Parret (1983) suggests"perverse" disciplines.
1.1. Language vs. Other Systems
In order to save for pragmatics a proper domain, Morris (1938:v, 1) suggests that "the unique element within pragmatics would be found in those terms which, while not strictly semiotical, cannot be defined in syntactics or semantics." If by this Morris meant those textual strategies that not even the most liberal semantics can foreseefor instance, strategies of conversational implicature, innuendoes about intended meaningthen the area of pragmatics results in being exaggeratedly reduced. If he meant such phenomena as deixis and presupposition, I think that these phenomena can and must be studied also from a semantic point of view. If he meant the domain of a speech-act theory, I still think that many kinds of speech act can also be accounted for by syntactics and semantics (since, for instance, orders can assume imperative forms syntactically recognizable, and there should be something in the representation of the meaning of to promise that characterizes its performative nature).
I suspect, however, that by "terms not strictly semiotical" Morris intended contextual elements that play a role in a linguistic interaction, such as the physical position of the speaker/hearer, facial expressions, time and place of the utterance, and so on. Unfortunately, such an assumption contrasts with the whole of Morris's semiotics. His semiotics is concerned, not only with linguistic phenomena, but also with every sign system.
A pragmatic approach to verbal interaction must take into account the relations among linguistic utterances and gestures, facial expressions, corporal postures, tonemic sounds and pauses, interjections, and so on. But such semiotic disciplines as paralinguistics, kinesics, proxe-

 
< previous page page_206 next page >