An Analysis on the Prospect of Present SemanticsAn Analysis on the Prospect of Present Semantics.docVIP

An Analysis on the Prospect of Present Semantics Abstract: This paper analyzes the prospect of present semantics through a careful study of the relationship between pragmatics and semantics, of the broader domain of pragmatics, of the inefficiency of semantics, and of Relevance Theory as a propping theory of pragmatics. Then, it predicts the inevitable fate of semantics: semantics will grow more and more narrow and be absorbed in pragmatics in the end. Semantics is a discipline that studies the relationship between meaning of language and verbal expression. Since ancient times, a number of scholars like Socrates and Plato have tried to explore the issue of the meaning of verbal expression. Thus semantics had had a long period of high time until the year of 1997, when Journal of Pragmatics was published and issued in Holland. The birth of the journal indicated that pragmatics was acknowledged as a newly founded discipline in the domain of linguistics. Thus, pragmatics began to compete with semantics while the two disciplines were complementarary to each other. And pragmatics has a broader researching field than its big brother, semantics does. On the other hand, semantics itself shows a great deal of inefficiency. Finally, Relevance Theory, the propping scientific theory of pragmatics, is gradually accepted as an effective method for logical reasoning. Therefore, pragmatics is taking the leading role . At first, pragmatics was not taken seriously and its status in linguistics relatively low, for it was regarded as a “used paper basket” which was to contain the problems that could not be resolved in the framework of semantics. However, as time passes on, many linguists have realized the value of pragmatics and made efforts to define the status of it and the relationship between the two disciplines. Leech describes the controversy on the above relationship and then sums up the various ideas as three groups[1]: the first group holds that pragmatics should be integr