{"id":1110,"date":"2022-04-06T11:19:00","date_gmt":"2022-04-06T09:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/some-theoretical-contributions-to-pragmatics\/"},"modified":"2024-03-14T22:01:14","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T20:01:14","slug":"some-theoretical-contributions-to-pragmatics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/some-theoretical-contributions-to-pragmatics\/","title":{"rendered":"Some Theoretical Contributions to Pragmatics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Generally pragmatic theories attempt to explain how utterances convey meaning in context, explain how meaning is decoded from utterances in context especially in particular situations and how the context contribute to the meaning making enterprise. They also endeavour to explain how speakers can say one thing and mean another, how speakers and hearers of utterances perceive them as conveying the meaning they are considered as conveying in particular utterances and how deduction or inferences are made in context with respect to what meaning has been encoded in particular utterances. This article will be considering some more of such theoretical contributions that has enhanced interests and studies in pragmatics over the years.<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Bach\u2019s and Harnish\u2019s Intention and Inference Theory<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bach and Harnish (1979) rejected Searle\u2019s and Austin\u2019s theory of speech acts which propose that an illocutionary act is based the speaker\u2019s intention to perform actions such as christening or marrying. You will recall that Strawson (1971) had earlier rejected Austin\u2019s theory and proposed an intention-centered theory. He argued that formalised ceremonial acts such as christening and marrying cannot represent everyday communication. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bach and Harnish followed Strawson in distinguishing between ceremonial acts for which convention is taken to be the primary illocutionary act, and the case of non-ceremonial acts like asking and stating, which they call \u2018communicative\u2019 and for which they assume that intention is crucial to the accomplishment of the illocutionary act (Sadock, 2006). The major contributions of Bach and Harnish may be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(i)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>to suggest a very general Speech Act Schema<\/i> (SAS) for communicative illocutionary acts,<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(ii)             <\/span><\/span><\/span>to show how inferences based on Mutual Contextual Beliefs <\/i>(MCBs) play a role in communicative speech acts, and<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(iii)          <\/span><\/span><\/span>to make detailed use of Grice\u2019s notion of conversational implicature<\/a> in fleshing out the theory (2006:63).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SAS is explained as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2a.       <\/span>S  <\/span>is  <\/span>uttering e<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>2b.                    <\/span><\/span><\/span>S means.by e<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>2c.                    <\/span><\/span><\/span>S is  <\/span>saying so and so<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>2d.                    <\/span><\/span><\/span>S is  <\/span>doing such and   <\/span>such (p.63)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Premise 2a follows from hearing the speaker utter e, plus the hearer\u2019s knowledge of the language, and 2b follows from 2a plus the knowledge that in this language, e means.. .Then 2c follows from 2b, supplemented with the assumption that S is speaking, literally plus the knowledge that there are certain MCBs in the context in which e bas been uttered. The reasoning to the conclusion 2d – that S is doing such and such in uttering e – involves the previous conclusion, other MCBs and what Bach and Harnish call the Communicative Presumption<\/i> (p.63).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This theory affirms that linguistic communication is basically an inferential process; therefore, illocutionary acts are performed with the intention that the hearer identify the act being performed. The inference made by the hearer and the inference he \u201ctakes himself to be intended to make is based not just on what the speaker says but also on mutual contextual beliefs (MCBs)\u201d (Bach and Harnish, 1979:5). Inference (based on SAS) means that in inferring what S is saying, H also relies on the \u201cpresumption of literalness (PL)\u201d i.e. \u201cif S could (under the circumstances) be speaking literally, then S is speaking literally. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, if it is evident to H that S could not be speaking literally, H supposes to be speaking nonliterally and therefore seeks to identify what the nonliteral illocutionary act is\u201d (1979:12). Non-literalness usually results in indirect speech acts in which S says one thing and means another or performs one illocutionary act while performing another at the same time. Thus if S says \u201cyou met me well\u201d S may be informing H he met him well (i.e. S is healthy) and at the same time inviting him to dinner. The success of the second act is tied to the first and therefore, for the second act to be understood, the first must be recognised. This account covers both literal and non-literal speech acts.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An act is communicatively successful as soon as the speaker\u2019s illocutionary intention is recognised by the hearer. Therefore, \u201cthe intended effect of an act of communication is not just any effect produced by means of the recognition of the intention to produce a certain effect; it is the recognition of the effect.\u201d Therefore \u201cperlocutionary acts are limited to the \u201cintentional production of effects on (or in) the hearer\u201d (p. 15; Adegbija, 1999).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levinson\u2019s Tri-heuristic theory<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

You will recall that Grice identified some types of implicatures namely generalized and particularized conversational implicatures. And we have seen how a statement like \u201csome Zambians are Muslims\u201d results in a generalized Quantity (or Q) inference (notice some,<\/i> i.e. not all) and the context-dependent particularized Relation (or R) inferences (i.e. relevant to the context). In his paper \u201cThree Levels of Meaning\u201d Levinson (1995) suggests that Q inferences (and Manner or M inferences) are instances of utterance-type<\/i> meaning and R inferences are instances of utterance-token<\/i> meaning.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Utterance-type is a predictable type of utterance which has regular inferred interpretation across a range of contexts (Grundy, 2000). An utterance token on the other hand is a single instance of an utterance whose interpretation depends on the context. Utterance meaning therefore yields conventional understandings or interpretations whose meanings, unlike those of utterance-tokens do not differ according to context. Utterance meaning resembles sentence meaning, but unlike sentence meaning, it is inferred and may be cancelled where the context does not allow the inference (Grundy, 2000).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Levinson argues that utterance-type implicatures may be traced to the insights (called heuristics)<\/i> that give rise to Grice\u2019s maxims of Quantity and Manner. The first Quantity (Q1) maxim – make your contribution as informative as is required is in effect a command to say as much as you can in the circumstance. Thus \u201cWhat is not said is not the case\u201d (Levinson, 1995:97). If I say \u2018some\u2019 it implies \u2018not all.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leech (1983) argues that the Quantity maxim essentially requires the use of the indefinite article (i.e. a, an, or some}<\/i> when the speaker\/hearer lacks insufficient knowledge to refer to definitely (with the use of \u2018the\u2019). Grice\u2019s second Quantity (Q2) maxim which says: \u201cdo not make your contribution more informative than is required\u201d enjoins us to say as little as we can so that if I say: \u2018a female pilot\u2019 I will take it for granted that the hearer will interpret it to mean \u2018a woman that flies an aircraft\u2019 but then inviting the M inference. Of course I may mean \u2018a woman that flies an aircraft\u2019 by saying \u2018female pilot\u2019 but may mean something else by simply saying \u2018a woman that flies an aircraft.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can summarise Levinson\u2019s contribution as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(a)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>identifies three levels of meaning: (i) utterance -type<\/i> (instances of Grice\u2019s quantity and manner maxims) (ii) token-type<\/i> (related to relation maxim) (iii) entailment<\/a><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(b)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>Q2-inferences are not like Q1 and M (manner) inferences because they provide general expected interpretations which show the conventional way speakers and hearers resolve the meaning of certain interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(c)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>Utterance type<\/span><\/i>meaning constitutes one of the three levels of meaning with token-meaning<\/i>and entailment<\/a><\/i> (Grundy, 2000)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adegbija\u2019s theory of Pragmatics<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Adegbija (1982) proposed a \u201cbalanced and unified\u201d theory of pragmatics building on the works of Searle, Grice, Bach and Harnish. He advocates utterance interpretation involving basically an inferencing process. Like Austin and Searle, Adegbija argues that we perform acts with words and the effects the words produce are not necessarily only hearer-directed. \u201cIllocutionary acts may be conventional but need not always be because the force of some illocutionary acts is determined by the intention of the speaker while others still may have to do with the pragmatics of the particular situation of social interaction\u201d (1999:203). <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using his example, if my boy is tearing his toy and I say to him \u201chello,\u201d he is likely to interpret this as a warning against his action. The pragmatics of the situation determines the illocutionary force and enables the boy to understand that \u201chello\u201d is not appropriate to the situation and therefore functions as a warning against what he is doing or an order to stop tearing his toy. This interpretation is further determined by the relationship between father and son. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such inferential process according to Adegbija is nurtured by the pragmatics of the situation, the social relationship obtaining between father and son, and the linguistic elements<\/a> used in performing the illocutionary act. These factors are called the \u201cpragmasociolinguistic context\u201d and Adegbija argues that these need not necessarily have anything to do with a specific intention of the speaker. The pragmatics of a situation of social interaction<\/a> according to Adegbija (1982) may consist of any or all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(a)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>the cognitive or effective states of the participants in the interaction at hand<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(b)              <\/span><\/span><\/span>special relationship obtaining among participants<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(c)               <\/span><\/span><\/span>mutual beliefs, understanding, or lack of these<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>(d)              <\/span><\/span><\/span>the nature of the discourse and how this relates to the interests of both the hearer and the speaker and to the context of interaction<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adegbija argues that an illocutionary act always<\/i> takes place and a perlocutionary effect always<\/i>occurs even if these are not the ones specifically intended by the speaker. In other words, the hearer\u2019s inference, based on the pragmasociolinguistic context, determines what illocutionary act he perceives the speaker as performing. This inference on the part of the hearer would seem to be more important in identifying and interpreting illocutionary acts than any fixed intentions which the speaker might have. Pragmatic factors often change in the course of discourse and this may influence the illocutionary force of utterances as well as their perlocutionary sequels.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pragmatics theories illustrate the various attempts by scholars to explain how linguistic pragmatics demonstrates the nature of language and how it works in the context of speakers and situations. Beyond the works of Back and Harnish, Levinson and Adegbija examined in this unit, it is interesting to note that more studies in pragmatics have continued over the years. Some of these studies do not only concentrate on the explanation of pragmatics as a subject, but its interrelationship with other disciplines. This we shall be considering in the subsequent units.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Generally pragmatic theories attempt to explain how utterances convey meaning in context, explain how meaning is decoded from utterances in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"wds_primary_category":144,"footnotes":""},"categories":[144,145],"tags":[283],"class_list":["post-1110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-language","category-pragmatics","tag-linguistics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1109,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/pragmatics-and-discourse-structure\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":0},"title":"Pragmatics and Discourse Structure Relationships","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0In this article we shall be examining the relationships between Pragmatics and Discourse Structure or some other ways speakers and writers encode meaning using some grammatical elements in discourse. Discourse (as we shall see in detail later), is the actual use of language in specific situations or what you may\u2026","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"PRAGMATICS AND DISCOURSE STRUCTURE","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/PRAGMATICS-AND-DISCOURSE-STRUCTURE.jpg?fit=765%2C441&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/PRAGMATICS-AND-DISCOURSE-STRUCTURE.jpg?fit=765%2C441&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/PRAGMATICS-AND-DISCOURSE-STRUCTURE.jpg?fit=765%2C441&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/PRAGMATICS-AND-DISCOURSE-STRUCTURE.jpg?fit=765%2C441&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1123,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/meaning-and-scope-of-pragmatics\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":1},"title":"MEANING AND SCOPE OF PRAGMATICS","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Quite a number of language scholars have defined pragmatics, which are of interest to us in this study. These definitions throw some light on the nature, principles and scope of pragmatics. Let\u2019s look at a few of them. MEANING AND SCOPE OF PRAGMATICS (i)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Leech & Short (1981:290) - Pragmatics\u2026","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"MEANING AND SCOPE OF PRAGMATICS","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MEANING-AND-SCOPE-OF-PRAGMATICS.png?fit=800%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MEANING-AND-SCOPE-OF-PRAGMATICS.png?fit=800%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MEANING-AND-SCOPE-OF-PRAGMATICS.png?fit=800%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MEANING-AND-SCOPE-OF-PRAGMATICS.png?fit=800%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1111,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/grices-theory-of-conversational-implicature\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":2},"title":"GRICE\u2019S THEORY OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In this article, we shall be considering some more concepts associated with Grice\u2019s theory of implicature and how they enable us to understand better how speakers and hearers are able to communicate effectively.","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"GRICE\u2019S THEORY OF CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/pexels-photo-3183150.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/pexels-photo-3183150.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/pexels-photo-3183150.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/pexels-photo-3183150.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/pexels-photo-3183150.jpeg?fit=1200%2C801&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1121,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/the-context-of-pragmatics-in-the-language-use\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":3},"title":"The Context of Pragmatics in the Language use","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Language use in this article will definitely refer to the use of linguistic codes (words) in the context of social life since pragmatics is the study of language use by individuals in specific social situations and whose actions are actually influenced by these situations. The study of language in its\u2026","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1108,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/interfaces-of-pragmatics\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":4},"title":"Interfaces of Pragmatics","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0In this article, we shall be considering the interfaces of pragmatics and other linguistic disciplines; in other words we shall see how grammar, lexicon and sound\/tone of voice interact with pragmatics. The questions we are likely going to answer will include: are there not purely grammatical constructions that convey pragmatic\u2026","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1107,"url":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/the-relationship-between-pragmatics-and-core-linguistics\/","url_meta":{"origin":1110,"position":5},"title":"The relationship between Pragmatics and core Linguistics","author":"centreforelites","date":"6 \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043b\u044f, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0Linguistics is formally defined as the scientific study of language and its subfields, i.e. phonology, lexis, syntax and semantics are often referred to as \u2018core linguistics.\u2019 Already we have endeavoured to explain the\u00a0interaction of pragmatics with these subfields by pointing out the mediatory roles pragmatics plays in providing answers associated\u2026","rel":"","context":"\u0412 "English Language"","block_context":{"text":"English Language","link":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/category\/english-language\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"The relationship between Pragmatics and core Linguistics","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/The-relationship-between-Pragmatics-and-core-Linguistics1.jpg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/The-relationship-between-Pragmatics-and-core-Linguistics1.jpg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/The-relationship-between-Pragmatics-and-core-Linguistics1.jpg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/The-relationship-between-Pragmatics-and-core-Linguistics1.jpg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/support.centreforelites.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/The-relationship-between-Pragmatics-and-core-Linguistics1.jpg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1110"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2333,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1110\/revisions\/2333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/support.centreforelites.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}