Introduction to Lexical Pragmatics

So what is Lexical Pragmatics? One way to answer this question is that Lexical Pragmatics is a study of how we use words. You may be aware of some other discussions of how words are used, such as the kind of language games that Wittgenstein discusses in his work. You may also be aware of Speech Act Theory in the writings of linguists like Searle. Some biblical scholars have used ideas from Speech Act theory in their writings, discussing things like the illocutionary effect of language or the perlocutionary dimensions of language.

In Lexical Pragmatics, the focus is on language use. At its heart, Pragmatics is a theory of how language is used for certain purposes. Lexical Pragmatics has been developed within RT to consider how words are used according to certain pragmatic principles.

When you hear the word “lexical,” you may think of a lexicon or how we say that words have a certain dictionary meaning. There is a sense in which words have a basic sense. So, for example, if I say fox with no context—assuming you recognize this English word—your mind takes you to some kind of skeletal meaning for fox. But if you’ve had a lot of experience with foxes, your “basic” meaning may be more robust.

The problem with dictionary meanings is that language is used in context. Even words spoken out of context have their own context like a language classroom or linguistics lesson. We are context-dependent creatures and we not only use words in context, we interpret them in context. Context is so powerful that we can hear unfamiliar words, even newly coined words, and our minds fill in some tentative meaning.

Context. Context is foundational to Lexical Pragmatics. But it’s important to understand that context in RT or Lexical Pragmatics is not a merely textual notion. The text within which a word is used is of course important—sometimes the term co-text is used to refer to this—, but context as it’s used here is  fluid, dynamic, online, and constantly changing. Context is used here in a cognitive sense rather than a textual one.

Communication takes place at the intersection of different contexts. Yours and mine. Our context and the context within which the biblical authors wrote. It’s this intersection of differing contexts that gives us the challenge of interpreting what fox means when used to refer to Herod. In American English, properly interpreting fox is potentially complicated by the use of the word to refer to an attractive woman. What does fox mean when it refers to a king? Other interpreters come with very different cultural understandings of foxes. Among the Mapuche in Chile, many traditional stories are told about foxes who are always devious thieves who prey upon innocent birds. But in Mapuche communities, there are many ngürü who are not the four-legged animals in your mental image. They are young men. Your mind may already be filling in some meaning for ngürü…

And this example brings me to the final point for this brief introduction: “words are often used in ways that depart from their ‘literal’ meanings.” This is language in use. Whether fox refers to a beautiful woman, a king, or a young Mapuche man, none of these are the “literal” meaning of the word, but we understand them all. We apply pragmatic principles to construct meaning at the intersection of contexts.

I’ll finish in a second. Well, not really, but that’s another example of how we use words in non-literal ways. This is language in action. Language being used to communicate. We can’t, of course, evaluate this use of language on the basis of its truth value. That’s not the point.

The point is, as Deirdre Wilson states in her course on Lexical Pragmatics, that there’s a gap “between the concept encoded by a word [its basic meaning] and the concept communicated (or expressed) by use of that word on a particular occasion. The gap between the concept encoded and the concept communicated by use of a word provides the basic data for lexical pragmatics, and the goal of lexical pragmatics is to explain how hearers bridge the gap.”