Pragmatic perspective

Thinking about communication as a patterned interaction makes sense to a certain degree. The book uses an example of a person crying, and says that you would have to know what event that occurred before the person started to cry in order to understand the communication better. The pragmatic perspective emphasizes that there are sequences of events that happen that are ordered without rules or laws. These sequences (or patterns) are what create communication. I think the pragmatic perspective is most useful with dyadic or interpersonal situations, and how they don't rely strictly on personality. The text states "we should focus on interaction rather than personality" (p. 35). In many personal conflicts, or when there are barriers to communication, people are quick to try and blame the problem on the other's personality, rather than looking at the the events that led up to the conflict. The pragmatic perspective is much like a game in the sense that there are sequences of events that go on in interaction. One person speaks, then the partner speaks, the conversation is sequential and dependent on the other making a move. Communication can be seen as more than a game though. The pragmatic perspective does not take context, rules, or personality into account at all. In a game, someone may be the aggressor and some of these things could come from personality or culture. Communication is also more than just a game. Serious real life consequences can stem from bad communication, and it's not all about winning or losing. Games generally always have a winner or a loser, and in communication I don't think there is always a winner and a loser. I stand by the social constructionist perspective in a way because I believe context, norms, and laws that govern communication are very important in communication.