Abstract
Drawing on Jacob Mey’s definition of pragmatics and the triad pragmeme, pract, allopract, the article speculates around the idea of constructing “a theory of everything”, i.e. an integrative framework for interpreting human communication. It hypothesizes some lines of thought to extend Mey’s in nuce theoretical proposals towards what I will call generative pragmatics. Generative pragmatics would be a principled account of the mechanisms that underlie the dynamics of speech acting as part of human social practice. Its aim would be to explain how situated speech acts are generated in the mind, creatively voiced by speakers in the public arena of a particular community of practice, and negotiated among interlocutors who co-generate interpracts according to conversational states at unique moments of interaction. The proliferation of schools of thought, directions of research, approaches, concepts, and terminologies has proved useful for an analytic, in depth focus on various, most often unrelated, aspects of language (competence) and communication (performance). A change in the research paradigm aiming to find common denominators among varieties and to merge complementary perspectives might prove useful for a synthetic look, showing “the big picture” of our interactional life as a print of humans’ biologic and material life.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 1, 93–124.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 3, 196–213. doi:10.1093/applin/5.3.196.
Bois, D., & John, W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for texts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity in interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 4–5, 585–614.
Canale, M. (1988). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67–84.
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1355–1371.
Capone, A. (2009). Speech acts, literal and non-literal. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 1018–1020). Oxford: Elsevier.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of consciousness in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 349–367.
de Saussure, F. (1916/1971). Cours de Linguistique Generale. Paris: Payot.
Dindelegan, G., & Maiden, M. (Eds.). (2013). The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, C., & Giurgea, I. (Eds.). (2013). A reference grammar of Romanian: Volume 1: The noun phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 683–685). Boston: Elsevier.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch, & S. Schneider (Eds.), Studies in pragmatics: New approaches to hedging (pp. 15–34). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Givón, T. (1999). The usual suspects: The grammar of perspective in narrative fiction. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Computense (Madrid), 7, 11–48.
Golopentia, S. (1977). Actes de parole et praxiologie. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 3, 371–378. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.
Golopentia, S. (1978). Morfologia conversatiei [The morphology of conversation]. Studii şi cercetări lingvistice, 5, 547–552.
Golopentia, S. (1980). L’histoire conversationnelle. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 5, 499–503.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 22–40). New York: Academic.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guţu-Romalo, V. (Ed.). (2008). Gramatica limbii române (Vol. I–II). Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.
Hofstede, G. (2015). http://geert-hofstede.com/romania.html
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural coopertation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hymes, D. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In W. Bright (Ed.), Sociolinguistics(pp. 114–158). The Hague: Mouton.
Ifantidou, E. (2010). Genres and pragmatic competence. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 327–346.
Jung, C. G. (1934–1954/2014). Opere Complete 1. Arhetipurile şi inconştientul colectiv. Bucureşti: Editura Trei.
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406.
Kecskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2889–2897. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008.
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax. Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kurzon, D. (1998). The speech act status of incitement: Perlocutionary acts revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(5), 571–596.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Descriptive application, Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Sentence-meaning and propositional content. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810213.007.
Mey, J. L. (1985). Whose language? A study in linguistic pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond Companion Series, Vol. 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mey, J. L. (1999). When voices clash: A study in literary pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mey, J. L. (2002). Pragmatics. An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. L. (Ed.). (2009). Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Mey, J. L. (2010). Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2882–2888.
Moore, E. (2010). Communities of practice and peripherality. In C. Llamas & D. Watt (Eds.), Language and identities (pp. 123–133). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1933). In H. Charles & W. Paul (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Principles of philosophy and elements of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pike, K. L. (1958). On tagmemes, née gramemes. International Journal of American Linguistics, 24, 273–278.
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text, 2, 239–257.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Handbook in generative syntax (pp. 281–338). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 3, 192–233.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In R. Eleanor & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (3rd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Speech Acts, Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). New York: Academic.
Şerbănescu, A. (2002). Întrebarea. Teorie şi practică [Asking questions. Theory and practice]. Iaşi: Polirom.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Stati, S. (1990). Le transphrastique. Paris: PUF.
Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). London: Academic.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91–112.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Weigand, E. (2009). In S. Feller (Ed.), Language as dialogue. From rules to principles of probability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, culture and cognition: Universal human concepts in culture-specific configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1994). “Cultural scripts”: A semantic approach to cultural analysis and cross-cultural communication. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph series, Vol. 5, pp. 1–24). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics. The semantics of interaction (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wong, J. (2010). The triple articulation of language. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2932–2944.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vasilescu, A. (2016). Towards a “Theory of Everything” in Human Communication. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (eds) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43490-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43491-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)