The article presents possible reasons for the lack of combining of pragmatics as a specific methodology with artistic/dramatic texts as objects of investigation. Pragmatics is only rarely used in treating dramatic texts. The traditional dichotomy in dividing linguistic reality into non-artistic & artistic texts has been, intentionally or not, preserved in scholarly treatments to the present. In reality, this is expressed as a notion that pragmatics can only cover non-artistic texts, which are in this respect mainly characterized by "spontaneity" & "naturalness." Taking into account numerous types of highly formalized non-artistic communication (eg, legal communication, conversations between teachers & students, doctors & patients) weakens this argument, while the reformulation of the definition of the artistic texts in Coseriu's sense as "language itself," ie, the realization of all types of texts & communicative situations, opens the way to pragmatics as a successful method of interpreting dramatic texts. 44 References. Adapted from the source document