The origin and development of pragmatics as a study of meaning: semiotic perspective

2.1 Pragmatics with the linguistic theoretical foundations

It is widely accepted that the origin of the term “pragmatics” may be traced back to the three dimensions of semiosis established in Morris’s essay “Foundations of the theory of signs” in 1938, namely syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. To explain why “pragmatics” is categorized as a branch of linguistics, we must revisit the content, object, and scope of pragmatic study within the framework of its linguistic theory. It is notable that Peirce has long pointed out that the word “pragmatics” is derived from the Greek “pragmatikós”, signifying a clear and definite relationship between human purposes. The inclusion of Pragmatics within the field of linguistics is based on the ideas of linguistic framework, which derive from Saussure’s dualism of signs, i.e., the theory of the relationship between signifier and signified, with structuralism as its philosophical foundation. In linguistics, language has its own laws, and the relationship between signifier and signified is essentially arbitrary and not subject to human logic. In this sense, pragmatics is by definition the science of language use, which is confined to a narrower register in the category of language. However, Morris’s proposal of pragmatics as one of the dimensions of semiosis aims to establish an all-encompassing general semiotics as his initial purpose. Therefore, pragmatics, as one of the dimensions of semiosis, is a general pragmatics relevant to the usage of all signs, not confined to the category of language as one of signs. We may refer to pragmatics grounded on linguistic theory as “linguistic pragmatics”. It is within the linguistic theoretical context that Pragmatics is thus considered a branch of linguistics in this appellation. From the perspective of disciplinary history, “Linguistic pragmatics” as a discipline not only carries the rational intension of a discipline, but also possesses the information of the historical development of the discipline (Jia 2019: 75), which has obvious language characteristics, and its research scope is naturally restricted to the level of speech acts. Linguistic pragmatics is concerned with the forms of language expression in relation to utterances in a specific context. Therefore, “linguistic pragmatics” belongs to the category of “descriptive pragmatics”, which does not include “formal pragmatics”, in terms of the research contents and objectives. The implications of the 1983 book Pragmatics by Levinson reinforce this assertion. The book presents the five components of pragmatic study, including “indexicals” or “deixis”, the distinction between which is that “indexicals” is a philosophical and logical notion, but “deixis” is a linguistic concept; Conversational implicature, which relates to illocutionary meaning; Presupposition, which indicates the common knowledge or common ground (Peirce’s term) between the speaker and the hearer in communication; Speech act, the fundamental unit of verbal communication, which is not words and phrases, but the performance of certain actions, including locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act; conversational structure, which refers to the structure of communication at the level of language users. The fundamental unit is turn-taking, which includes presequence, speech sequence, parenthesis sequence, and correction sequence, among others. From the analysis of the five aforementioned research aspects, it is easy to deduce that the contents of pragmatic research listed by Levinson are restricted to the verbal dimension, which belongs to the category of descriptive pragmatics, and that its research methodology is the code mode of descriptive pragmatics. Thus, the research content of “linguistic pragmatics” study is primarily “language meaning” research. Whether it’s conversational structure, presumption, deixis, or speech actions, it’s for the effectiveness of communication. In order to accomplish comprehension and transmission of meaning, utterance meaning is effectively conveyed in the turn-taking between the speaker and the hearer. The disciplinary intension of “linguistic pragmatics” in the linguistic dimension seems to be narrower than that of Morris’s proposal of “general pragmatics”. Taking the speech in a specific context as the research object, with a focus on the forms of language expression, is the tradition of the Saussurean school of linguistics, in terms of origin.

2.2 Morris’s pragmatics as the real origin of pragmatics

If “linguistic pragmatics” is essentially concerned with the appropriateness of particular communicative actions and their utterance usage in context, then “pragmatics” as developed by Morris emphasizes a broader perspective on meaning. Morris focuses on the general meaning of semiotics, i.e., his research is not confined to the pragmatic research at the levels of speech and specific contexts. His “pragmatic” research focuses on the relationship between signs and sign users (Morris 1938: 6), indicating the general pragmatic system involving the signs used in the process of communication (verbal or nonverbal signs, tangible or intangible signs), with no distinctiveness of morphological structure (Jia 2019: 269). He prefers to characterize semiotics as an axiomatic system, which has an initial form of expression as “X accepts A”.

Linguistic pragmatics focuses on the content of descriptive pragmatics, i.e., the application of language in specific context, whereas Morris’s pragmatics embraces the representation of the biological level of semiosis, i.e., the representation of the psychological, biological and sociological phenomena in the signifying process (Jia 2019: 80). Morris’ pragmatics comprises the research contents and objects of formal pragmatics, descriptive pragmatics, and even applied pragmatics, and its research scope encompasses all references to “linguistic pragmatics”. Grounded on pragmatism as one of its philosophical fundamentals, Morris’s pragmatics studies the relationship between signs and sign users. Therefore, pragmatics here belongs to Peircean tradition from the source.

Pragmatics is closely related to William James (1842–1910) and Charles Peirce (1839–1914). The former points out the practicability of pragmatics, while the latter regards pragmatics as an experimental, empirical, and purposeful thought under the influence of Kant’s pragmatism (Jia 2019: 293). Pragmatics is also often associated with the Greek “prăgma” with the meaning of “action”, “guidance”, or “utility” (Bublitz and Hübler 2007). Actually, pragmatics is inseparable from the core of pragmatism. Pragmatism, especially the theory of pragmaticism, could be regarded as the parental source of pragmatics. As early as the 1870s, when Peirce founded pragmatism, he made it abundantly apparent that pragmatism was a philosophy that investigated the relationship between people’s thoughts and their language expressions in their acts. Therefore, pragmatic maxim established by Pierce is a method of “belief fixation” and “concepts clarification” per se. As a result of the intimate relationship between human behavior and the use of language, pragmatism is inescapable in the process of ideas clarification. Accordingly, pragmatism as a methodology consists of two primary theoretical components: one is the theory of “acts” and the other is the theory of “meaning”. Actually, it is inferred in the practical study of pragmatism with two major problems: The first is the object in our minds, which is related to the external world by virtue of our acts and activities; the second is the relationship between the meaning of our ideas, signs and human minds, acts. The former emphasizes the relationship between acts, ideas, and the external world; The latter focuses on revealing the relationship between linguistic signs and the ideas and acts of their users, i.e., the linguistic semiotics of pragmatism (Pragmatics), short for “linguistic pragmatics” (Kha 2017: ii). Grounded on the logicism, pragmatism and behaviorism in Pierce’s thought, pragmatics focuses on the pragmatical dimension of the signifying process of signs. Consequently, pragmatics based on logic also analyzes human communicative language; its central focus is the human thinking concealed in the forms of language expression, with sentences serving as an example of exposing their true value. The formalized system pursued by pragmatics is excluded by linguists.

The proposal of Morris’s pragmatics is actually an extension of Pierce’s pragmatic thought. Morris’s semiotic trichotomy grounded on logic positivism, empiricism and pragmatism is inseparable from the influence of Pierce’s trichotomy of the theory of signs, but Pierce’s semiotic triads cover a broader field: (1) speculative (or formal) grammar, (2) logic, and (3) pure, formal, or speculative rhetoric. Speculative grammar is the predecessor of Morris’s syntactics, which studies the relationship among signs themselves and explores “the general conditions for signs being signs” (CP 1.444). It is “the general theory of the nature and meanings of signs, whether they be icons, indices, or symbols” (CP 1.191); Logical ontology is the second subfield of semiotics and the originator of Morris’s semantics, which includes linguistic semantics. According to Peirce, semantics is concerned with the connection between signs and their objects. “It is the science of what is quasi-necessarily true of the representamina of any scientific intelligence in order that they may hold good of any object, that is, may be true. Or say, it is the formal science of the conditions of the truth of representations” (CP 2.229). Speculative rhetoric is the antecedent of Morris’s pragmatics and the originator of linguistic pragmatics, which investigates the interaction between signs, sign-makers, and interpreters, as well as the effects produced by signs in semiosis with the man. “It is the doctrine of the general conditions of the reference of Symbols and other Signs to the Interpretants which they aim to determine […]” (CP 2.93). Speculative rhetoric, also of the laws of the evolution of thought, is “[…] the study of the necessary conditions of the transmission of meaning by signs from mind to mind, and from one state of mind to another, […]” (CP 1.444). Speculative rhetoric seems to cover more than Morris’ pragmatics. Firstly, it studies how signs “change from one state of mind to another”, which means that pragmatics as one of three branches of semiotics studies not only signs in communication, but also signs in mind that have not been communicated to any other interpreter. Secondly, speculative rhetoric is also regarded as “a rhetoric of fine art”, “a rhetoric of practical persuasion”, “a rhetoric of science” (EP 2.329). Therefore, from the perspective of semiotics, the intension and nature of Peirce’s pragmatics seems to be broader than that of linguistic pragmatics, which is precisely why Morris has always been committed to the study of Semiotics: to determine the theories of “general semiotics and its branches”.

In this case, the conceptual properties and research scope of Peirce and Morris’ pragmatics exceed those of “linguistic pragmatics”. Morris and Peirce’s pragmatic philosophy tends to include the theoretical tendency of contemporary pragmatics that academic circles are concerned with. As semiotic theory is more abstract and less popular than linguistic theory, which makes the “linguistic pragmatics” more popular and acceptable, so that many scholars take for granted that Austin’s “pragmatic thought” with apparent linguistic characteristics is the origin of pragmatics, despite the fact that linguistic pragmatics is actually confined to the signs at the level of verbal communication. The pragmatics of Peirce and Morris is seldom concerned and investigated by semiotics specialists.

2.3 Peirce’s pragmaticism as the parental source of pragmatics

The term pragmatics can be traced back to the work of American semiotician and behaviorist Charles Morris and his distinction between three dimensions of semiosis: Syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. Since pragmatics as a linguistic discipline is established, ordinary language philosophers and speech act theorists, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, John L. Austin (1911–1960), John R. Searle (1932–), and H. Paul Grice (1913–1988) are considered to have laid the groundwork for pragmatics. This assertion, however, does not adequately address the philosophical foundations and parental source of pragmatics. Despite the fact that Peirce and Morris’s pragmatics overlaps with “linguistic pragmatics” in terms of the meaning and usage of speech acts and language signs, the name “pragmatics” has philosophical significance and semiotic characteristics. Pragmatists such as Austin, Searle, Grice, etc., define pragmatics primarily from the discipline of linguistics, whereas Peirce and Morris interpret pragmatics based on the philosophy of logic positivism, empiricism, and pragmatism, connecting closely with semiotics, as well as analytical philosophy as its development in the post-semiotic period. As such, the term “pragmatics” is conducive to highlight the significance of semiotic accomplishments of Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead, etc. In addition, as a particular semiotic academic term, “pragmatics” must set its own norms and rules. It is vital to differentiate between the terms “pragmatical” and “pragmatic” when discussing the science of the interaction between relevant signs and their interpreters. Consequently, the majority of symbols, like their interpreters, are composed of living organism, allowing pragmatics to correctly represent the object. Pragmatics can represent the biological level of the semiosis, i.e., the psychological, biological and sociological phenomena in the function of sign reference. Pragmatics also has its pure theoretical and descriptive aspects. The former derives from the pragmatic feature of semiosis, whereas the latter relates to the use of language in certain contexts. The scope of “pragmatical” is, accordingly, broader than that of “pragmatics”, as Peirce’s pragmatism is more closely related to the category of “pragmatic”, as demonstrated by the definition of the relationship between signs and their sign users in Morris’s proposal of pragmatical dimension of semiosis. The acknowledged term “pragmatics” seems to be more congruent with Peirce’s pragmaticism in terms of their research boundaries. For further expounding the distinction between “pragmatical” and “pragmatic”, it is necessary to make clear the substantial distinction between the two terms “pragmatism” and “pragmaticism”. The term “Pragmatical” is based on “pragmatism” of James et al., whereas the term “Pragmatic” is the product of “the ugly word pragmaticism” created by Pierce, with pragmaticism as its foundation. Fundamentally, Peirce’s pragmaticism differs subtly from the pragmatism of James, Dewey, etc. As Pierce’s word ‘pragmatism’ is “[…] abused in the merciless way that words have to expect when they fall into literary clutches” (CP 5.414), it inevitably results in “the degradation of pragmatism to behaviorism” (Nadin 1993: 219). In 1905, Peirce replaced the word “pragmatism” with the neologism “pragmaticism”. Pierce commented that this is a word “ugly enough to be safe from being kidnapped” (CP 5.414). Although the appellation has been changed, its theoretical essence and intension have not fundamentally been changed, but their emphasis is different. The “pragmaticism” of Peirce emphasizes on the connection between human experience and action, from which it derives the meaning of action. At the semiotic dimension, it is advocated that the intension and extension of terms and concepts originate from the trichotomy of theory of signs: sign-object-interpretant (Jia 2019: 83). Albeit, the nature and intension of Peirce’s pragmatism are not substantially different from those of his replaced neologism “pragmaticism”, but they are different from the pragmatism developed by pragmatists as James and Dewey in the same period. James’s and others’ perspectives increasingly diverge from Pierce’s pragmatism, which is a one-sided misrepresentation of pragmatism as a way for people to achieve effects. The initiating intention of Pierce’s partial pragmatic thinking has been weakened and neglected, as seen by James’s “absolute empiricism” and Dewey’s “Instrumentalism”, which specifically diminish the notion of “effects” in Pierce’s pragmatic theory, i.e., the “meaning” in the Pragmatic Maxim. Therefore, pragmatism’s bounds are broader than those of Peirce’s pragmaticism. In conclusion, the word “pragmatical” corresponds to the “pragmatism” of James, Dewey, etc., while the research object, scope, and nature of pragmatics are consistent with those of Peirce’s pragmaticism and its Pragmatic Maxim, all of which are concerned with the study of “meaning” and “effect”.

5.1 Pragmatics in Anglo-American analytical philosophy

According to pragmatics in Anglo-American analytical philosophy, pragmatics is derived from Morris’s semiotic theory. Morris divides semiotics into three distinct branches: Syntactics is the study of the relationship between signs; Semantics studies the relationship between signs to their objects; Pragmatics studies the relations between signs and their sign users. In other words, pragmatics is a linguistic discipline, but has its origin of semiotic. More specifically, pragmatics is a linguistic discipline juxtaposed with language sciences like syntax, semantics, phonetics, phonology and sociolinguistics. Context and meaning are two essential ideas that are crucial to Pragmatics. Pragmatic study focuses on the meaning of the speaker’s intention, i.e., the meaning not covered in semiotics. Pragmatics does not investigate the static meaning that only exists in words and phrases, but rather the context-specific meaning of actions. The two types of meaning distinguished by linguistics are sentence meaning and utterance meaning. Given that the same phrase might have distinct meanings or have different communication roles in different settings, utterance meaning is emphasized in pragmatic study. As such, the meaning in pragmatics as one of linguistic disciplines has its origin in Peirce’s focus on meaning. One of the main purposes of pragmatism is to avoid of the dualism between thought and action (Colapietro 1992: 430). Peirce describes the specific application of this “Pragmatic Maxim” as “Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical judgment expressible in a sentence in the indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose only meaning, if it has any, lies in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim expressible as a conditional sentence having its apodosis in the imperative mood” (CP 5.18). Parret believes that pragmatism has three main implications for Linguistic Pragmatics, “the ‘pragmatic attitude’ is characterized by three features: meaning is context-bound, rationality is discourse-bound, signifying should be seen as understanding. Therefore, the ‘pragmatic attitude’ is inspired by pragmatism” (Parret 1983: 3). The enlightenment of Linguistic Pragmatics from the traditional thought of pragmatism is the importance of the effect of language on human behavior. The normalized communicative method is one of the foundations shared by Peirce’s semiotics and language pragmatics. Pierce’s contribution to Linguistic Pragmatics is often credited to Searle’s “expression principle”. Searle expresses that “this principle by saying that for any meaning X and any speaker S whenever S means (intends to convey, wishes to communicate in an utterance, etc.) X then it is possible that there is some expression E such that E is an exact expression of or formulation of X” (Searle 1969: 20). However, Peirce defines the “expression principle” more simply and earlier than Searle. i.e., “for thought and expression are really one” (CP 1.349). Searle points out that “meaning is more than a matter of intention, it is also at least sometimes a matter of convention” (Searle 1969: 45). Conversational implicature is thus grounded on the assumption of the difference between meaning and expression per se.

5.2 Peirce’s pragmatic theory of meaning

The meaning of a concept is not determined by the meaning it reflects, but by the effect it has on action, according to Peirce’s meaning theory of pragmatism. This concept is connected to Austin and Searle’s speech act theory since they proposed the speech act triads: Locutionary actions, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts. Perlocutionary acts are the effects caused by speech. Peirce’s theory of meaning is, therefore, pragmatic throughout (cf. Hilpinen 1995: 297). Meaning is the idea which the sign “attaches to its object” (CP 5.6), but not all the signs have meanings inherently and meanings are not inherent priori in the signs; meanings can only be revealed and produced in the process of semiosis (Pape 1996: 308). Words only have meaning “in so far as we are able to make use of it in communicating our knowledge to others and in getting at the knowledge that these others seek to communicate to us” (CP 8.176). Therefore, no “semantic” or “conventional” meaning can be found in Pierce’s assumptions. According to the Pragmatic Maxim, the meaning of an utterance is disclosed not only by its process of interpretation, but also by its actions and habits as its effects or consequences. In one of his late definitions, Peirce sums up “the meaning of any [assertion] is the meaning of the composite of all the propositions which that [assertion] would under all circumstances empower the interpreter to scribe” (MS^[5] 280; cf. Pietarinen 2005: 1769; cf. Nöth 2011: 188). As utterances have no intrinsic meaning apart from their employment in speech actions, Peirce makes no distinction between utterance and speaker meaning. In addition, he distinguishes many other kinds of meanings. Some aspects of meaning are connected to the object of the sign, as the sign presupposes the collateral knowledge of its object and the common ground of knowledge shared by the speaker and the listener. Other analysis of the kinds of meanings related to the interpretant and the effect of the meaning created by signs could be available in “Reflections on the role of the communicative sign in semeiotic” of Bergman (2000: 234 for both). In the above-discussed theory of interpretant, we find that the intentional interpretant as a term in Peirce’s semiotics corresponds to the speaker’s meaning in Linguistic Pragmatics, while the effective interpretant as a term corresponds to the Grice’s listener’s meaning in linguistic pragmatics; however, Peirce distinguishes other types of interpretants (cf. Johansen 2002: 48). His immediate interpretant which is the interpretant as it is revealed in the right understanding of the Sign itself, and is ordinarily called the meaning of the sign (CP 4.536), i.e., the meaning indicated by a sign that is interpreted before itself, is closer to Searle’s conventional meaning, but the interpretant is not always the meaning of a sign in the linguistic sense. Pierce also recognizes the potential of discrepancies between utterance and its meaning, as described in Linguistic Pragmatics, but his assertions about how to communicate meaning in the interaction between the speaker and the interpreter are based on alternative premises. According to Searle, meaning is not determined by rules, conventions and speaker’s intention, but by habits, common ground and the collateral experience of the objects of signs (1969: 43–45). Meaning is not only vague by exception, but it is essentially vague (Nöth and Santaella 2009, cf. Nöth 2011: 189). The meaning of language is vague to some extent because of the properties of generality and vagueness in words. Provided that the emotion, desire, and inner conflict are given consideration between the speaker and the listener while they are communicating, the meaning of words is to be much vaguer, specifically, more proliferated or more degenerative. For instance, emotions are never definite and distinct entities; they must be nebulous and can only be conveyed and explained via allusions, conjecture, intuition, and communicative negotiation. Therefore, “no communication of one person to another can be entirely definite, i.e., non-vague. […] Wherever degree or any other possibility of continuous variation subsists, absolute precision is impossible. Much else must be vague, because no man’s interpretation of words is based on exactly the same experience as any other man’s. Even in our most intellectual conceptions, the more we strive to be precise, the more unattainable precision seems” (CP 5.506). Vagueness and generality are the two main causes of indeterminacy in conversation. This vagueness will not only lead to misunderstanding and even communicative failure. However, indeterminate signs are the source of creativity of interpreters and speakers. The interpreter must use his own imagination to determine the meaning symbolized by vague or general signs. This is also the source and drive of semiosis ad infinitum as well as the growth of signs. The nature of interpretant is the extension and effect of illocutionary force caused by linguistic vagueness in the linguistic pragmatic field, as the interpretation of the hearer is differentiated in accordance with his evaluation of the words sent by the speaker, which have been processed in his mind as a sign, so as to be further interpreted as a new sign of another round of semiosis, ad infinitum.

In addition, the hearer integrates the words as signs supplied by the speaker with his own unique knowledge system to discern the ambiguous meaning of words. The speaker who utilizes ambiguous signs might indicate the meaning of his utterances without being held accountable for his remarks. Therefore, ambiguity not only poses a threat to communication, but also challenges the imagination of the listener in order to comprehend the intention of speakers. As Nöth comments that “Peirce develops these ideas of the advantages and risks of taking and giving freedom of semantic choice with an example of a generality and one of referential vagueness” (Nöth 2011: 189).

5.3 The research contents in pragmatics

Both Linguistic Pragmatics and Peirce’s pragmatic theory are concerned with the investigation of meaning. The study contents of linguistic pragmatics are concentrated on meaning and context, which correlates precisely to Peirce’s theories on meaning and the notion of common ground or common knowledge, since context in Pragmatics includes both linguistic and extra-linguistic information. The subsets of linguistic knowledge are the mastery of language and the comprehension of language communication. Background knowledge (encyclopedic knowledge, social norms and conversation rules of a specific culture), situational knowledge (communication time, communication theme, communication formality, and the relationship between communication participants), and common knowledge are subcategories of extralinguistic knowledge. As Pietarinen argues that “many of the pragmatic notions that are commonly attributed to H. P. Grice, or are reported to be inspired by his work on pragmatics, such as assertion, conventional implicature, cooperation, common ground, common knowledge, presuppositions and conversational strategies, have their origins in C. S. Peirce’s theory of signs and his pragmatic logic and philosophy. Both Grice and Peirce rooted their theories in normative rationality, anti-psychologism, and the relevance of assertions. With respect to the post-Gricean era of pragmatics, theories of relevance may be seen to have been geared, albeit unconsciously, upon Peirce’s pragmatic agenda” (Pietarinen 2004:295). Accordingly, Pietarinen generalizes explicitly the study topics in modern pragmatics that derive from Peirce’s theory of signs and his pragmatic concept.

The term “deixis” refers to the study of the relationship between language and context, including personal, temporal, and spatial deixis.

The concept of “conversational implicature” presents the Gricean cooperative principle and its four maxims. It assumes that the objective of human communication is to develop mutual understanding, which requires cooperation. Even though it violates the cooperative maxims outwardly, it still has the desire to cooperate. At this time, it is necessary to deduce the discourse violating the maxims according to the context so as to discover the meaning indicated in it.

As with conversational implicature, “Presupposition” is an activity of pragmatic inference that infers the prerequisites of utterances based on the meanings involved in the real language structures by examining logical concepts, semantics, and context, etc. The fundamental premise of speech act theory is that “words imply action”. Speech Act Theory was established by Austin in 1962, and then developed by Searle, resulting in the formation of the triads of speech acts as “locutionary act”, “illocutionary act” and “perlocutionary act”. Speech Act Theory describes and evaluates the indirect speech acts in language communication by means of reasoning. Two dimensions are used in the examination of conversational structure: the local framework and the integral structure. The local framework consists of turn-taking and the composition of adjacent pairs, among other elements. The integral structure refers to the composition of a conversation activity, including the beginning, development, and ending of the conversation. The investigation of the integral structure is static. In the 1990s, conversational research transitioned into a dynamic state pertaining to the purposes of interlocutors, the devices and methods used to attain those purposes, and the interaction between the two interlocutors in conversational activities. Therefore, it is straightforward to conclude that “conversational implicature” and “linguistic conduct” are the primary subjects of investigation in Pragmatics based on Anglo-American analytic philosophy. The primary study method is logical reasoning, which is the individual behavior of language users, and the context of reasoning is the actual context of individuals.

5.4 Peirce’s semiotics as the parental source of pragmatics

It is not by chance that pragmatics exists as a distinct field of study; rather, it is the history and evolution of its growth that propels pragmatics toward progressive perfection and prosperity from the “wastebasket”, to which its theoretical origins make a vital contribution. Pragmatics has its parental source in Peirce’s semiotics grounded on pragmaticism. In his essay titled “Charles Sanders Peirce, Pathfinder in Linguistics”, Winfried Nöth, a famous semiotician and the author of the authority of semiotic works named Handbook of Semiotics (1990), wrote:

“Peirce’s contributions to linguistic pragmatics have so far remained largely unexplored (Pape 1996: 316). Long before Austin and Searle, Peirce studied speech acts and their consequences for the speaker and hearer (cf. Brock 1981; Martens 1981). He shows, e.g., in how far “taking an oath […] is not mere saying, but is doing” (CP 5.546) and that “to assert a proposition is to make oneself responsible for it” (CP 5.543), whereas “conventional utterances, such as ‘I am perfectly delighted to see you’” are speech acts “upon whose falsehood no topics punishment at all is visited” (CP 5.546). The consequences of lying, denying, or judging, the strategies of questioning, commanding, or teaching, the pragmatic characteristics of fiction, and the strategies of dialogic communication are other topics of Peirce’s studies in the theory of speech acts which deserve closer linguistic study” (Hilpinen 1995; Thibaud 1997; Nöth 2000: 9–10).

In fact, with the exception of Peirce’s notion of the meaning of effects, the other three components are intimately connected to pragmatics. The first aspect pertains the things as the effects of empiricism; the starting point of Pierce’s theory is comparable to subjective empiricism. He denied the objective existence of the material world. He argues that “things are effects”, which, in essence, is identical to the classic subjective empiricism emphasizing the whole external universe and the human cognitive process. Peirce’s modes of signs significantly reflect his beliefs on objects and consequences. A sign consists of its representamen, object, and interpretant. In the process of human cognition, the representamen does not fully represent the meaning of the object (the objective world). The meaning is obtained by means of interpretation from human, i.e., the judgement of subjective experiences of human. This idea is also brought into play in the field of pragmatics, specifically, in the information communication; meaning is determined by the relationship between the sign and its users involving the addresser and addressee. Peirce provided a pragmatic explanation of the nature of meaning (cf. Gentry 1952; Alston 1956: 82–85) when he described the interpretant as “the proper significate outcome” or “effect of the sign” (CP 5.474–475), or as “something created in the Mind of the Interpreter” (CP 8.179). Peirce characterized the interpretant as a sign in line with his theory of thought as a sign and his view of interpretation as a process of semiosis. He defined interpretant that “A sign addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign” (CP 2.228). In other words, the meaning expressed by the addresser is the outcome of the interpretation (interpretant) of the addressee, and the logical reasoning of the addresser’s utterances from the addresser in a particular context, which is the most essential theoretical foundation of pragmatics. The second aspect is his biological behaviorism. Pierce equates human cognition and action with the instinctive activity of biological adaptation to the environment. The belief of human action is not built on the recognition of objective laws and inevitability; rather, it is only a biological instinct. Biological behaviorism is the most significant aspect of Morris’s philosophy. He developed the idea of biological behaviorism, which is related to Austin and Searle’s speech act theory per se since they promote “doing things with words” and think that using language is a kind of action and speech is acts. This concept is also related to the functionalism of language, as it is to perform a social function if the action is connected to human social life. The third aspect is on his theory of modern logic. In Pierce’s view, Semiotics “extends logic”. In a sense, logic is just an alias of semiotics. Sign activity (the process of sign generation) is the application of his logic. Peirce divides the signs into the firstness, the secondness and the thirdness. This kind of classification is actually the sign process (the process of sign generation). Each stage is a sign from representamen to object, and then to interpretant. The representamen signifies the object, but it does not fully represent the meaning of the object. This referential relationship has to be interpreted so as to determine the actual meaning indicated in the sign. Peirce’s theory of infinite semiosis, in which an interpretant derives its meaning not from itself, but from what it is not, i.e., from another interpretant, and so on ad infinitum (CP 2.303). Thereby, interpretation is to make logical reasoning. As such, Peirce’s notion of infinite semiosis is the methodology of pragmatics. Conversational implicature entails pragmatic inference on words that violate the cooperative principle based on a given context in order to determine their inferred meaning. As with conversational implicature, presupposition is also pragmatic inference. It deduces the preconditions of utterances based on the meaning of the actual language structure and logical concept, semantics and context. Speech acts theory explains the indirect speech acts that often occur in language communication. The main method of interpretation is also pragmatic reasoning. In general, Pragmatics studies the relationship between meaning and context. Meaning is the result of the addressee’s logical reasoning of the addresser’s words in accordance with a certain context.