The Pragmatic Perspective

It was very interesting to read about the pragmatic perspective. The sequence of move, reacting counter move, definitely made sense when trying to contextualize a communication model. The crying example in the book very eloquently explained this, simply seeing someone cry doesn’t convey meaning as to why they are crying, you need to understand the context that caused the crying to understand. This communication model made sense in the form of a game whereas both the sender and receiver are interdependent upon the other, with one reacting to the other, and even by not reacting, is still playing the “game”. I think that the pragmatic view differs from a game in that it’s too logical, too ordered. Part of playing a game is that it’s supposed to be fun for both players. The pragmatic view breaks this model when only one person is playing, interacting, or getting anything out of the communication. I disliked the mental state of exclusivity that the pragmatic view fosters. Not only does this perspective typically discount the surroundings, or anything outside of the communication, it also doesn’t seem to include too much insight as to how the communication is affecting the speaker. It seems to focus more on the dyad.