| Language in use is about how language is used by the | | | | Nevertheless, sometimes we may find that kind of |
| speaker and perceived by the hearer. Talking about | | | | sentence (Donut ate John). It may have meaning like: |
| language in use is talking about Pragmatics. Pragmatics | | | | Donut is actually a name of monster. The sentence |
| is one of the items in the trichotomy of general | | | | may be used in certain context for certain purpose. |
| science of signs (read: Semiotics). The trichotomy, by | | | | Here, pragmatics plays its role. |
| Charles Sanders Peirce is syntactic-semantics-and | | | | Pragmatics concerns signs as well, but it is more about |
| pragmatics. | | | | how those signs are used and interpreted. How do |
| Syntax is about words connection; the connection of | | | | people produce, offer, and interpreted language. The |
| grammatical structure of sentence, the form of | | | | sentence given may be used as a joke, insult, and so |
| sentence. Syntax studies the connection among signs | | | | on. |
| without considering the meaning of signs, the specific | | | | Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as |
| signification, and the function of relation among signs. | | | | communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted |
| Example: | | | | by the hearer (or reader). Therefore, pragmatics is the |
| John ate donut | | | | study of the speaker meaning, in certain context. What |
| The sentence above is meaningful in a perfect | | | | meant with context is whom they are talking to, where, |
| grammatical structure. Syntactically, although the | | | | when, and under what. Pragmatics also studies how |
| sentence is restructured become: | | | | more gets communicated than is said. Pragmatically, |
| Donut ate john | | | | we cannot understand the sentence "Donut ate John" |
| The sentence is syntactically correct. The connections | | | | literally, but we should look deeper, what the speaker's |
| of signs are true. However, is it possible that donut can | | | | meaning is. Pragmatics is also the study of the |
| eat John? | | | | expression of relative distance, or the relationship of |
| Semantically, the second sentence is illogic. Semantics | | | | interactants. |
| is about the meaning of the signs connection. John and | | | | People expressions are different each other, or people |
| ate is correctly connected, donut as the object is | | | | express their meaning for one differently to other. For |
| required because verb ate is transitive verb. John | | | | the example, you can say "Open the door!" to your |
| function as the actor who performs ate and donut as | | | | friend, your younger brother or sister, but you cannot |
| the patient that is the verb ate performed on. The | | | | say it to your lecturer that way. To do that expression, |
| connections among entities in the sentences are logic. | | | | you may use more polite utterance "May the door is |
| When the sentence is restructured become Donut ate | | | | opened?" or "It is very hot here" or other way. What |
| John, the connections become illogical. The meaning of | | | | makes you do this is the difference of relative |
| Donut is food, and it is impossible that a kind of food | | | | distance. |
| eats human. Here, it can be seen that the difference | | | | It is clear that pragmatics is about how people use |
| between syntax and semantics is that if syntax is | | | | language in certain context for certain purpose. In |
| about the structure without meaning, semantics studies | | | | pragmatics, we will find some tools to be used to |
| the structure and the meaningfulness of signs | | | | analyze the speaker meaning, or the meaning of |
| connection. Therefore, syntactically the restructured | | | | utterance in context. |
| sentence is meaningless or unacceptable. | | | | |