The first definition is offered by Crystal (1997) which defines pragmatics as the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context. In addition to using speech acts such as apologizing, complaining, complimenting, and requesting, communicative action includes also engaging in different kinds of discourse and participating in speech events of varying length and complexity.
In fact, this definition focused only on interactional competence of the language speakers. Such interactional competence was clarified in a study that was conducted by Peirce (1995). Although Peirce’s (1995) study focused on the social identity of the language learners and how to move from motivation to investment while learning the language, the most important parts of the study were concluded from the sociocultural context that learners live in and different types of discourse that they go through.
According to Leech (1983), pragmatics is the way speakers and writers accomplish goals as social actors who do not just need to get things done but must attend to their interpersonal relationships with other participants at the same time. Such definition refers to investing in language learning which is fully clarified by Peirce (1995) with no reference to pragmatics in her study.
In my opinion, pragmatics is the hidden umbrella of Peirce’s (1995) study. Pragmatics was divided by Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) into two components: Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics. Both components refer to the resources for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings within the frame of social perceptions which work as the base of participants’ interpretation and performance of communicative action.