DA and context (introduction in chronological order)
The term context is used on everyday basis in any possible aspect of our life. In the frames of language analysis context is used nearly in every possible situation to broaden the scope of linguistic description. The term context, with its use in language analysis, traces back to Malinowski, who wanted to illustrate how the code worked in the contexts of use. He invoked the notion of context to account for the way language … functioned as ‘a mode of action’. As Malinowski suggested, “the meaning of any single word is to a very high degree dependent on its context” (1923:306).
The interpretation of sentence is an important factor when looked at through the prism of context and since the beginning of 1950 linguists have become increasingly aware of this importance. J. R. Firth, who is considered to be the founder of modern British linguistics, notes that logicians think of words and propositions as carrying meaning in themselves and this meaning is “apart from participants in context of situation” (1957: 226). This approach seems to exclude the speakers and the listeners, Firth thinks, and he suggests that “voices should not be entirely dissociated from the social context in which they function”. Firth’s suggestion was to regard all texts in modern spoken languages as having “implication of utterance” and participants as always referred to in a “generalized context of situations” (1957: 226). Firth is concerned with embedding the utterance in the “social context” which is later supported by Hymes in his works of early 60s. Hymes treats the role of context in interpretation and analysis as an aspect that limits the array of possible interpretations and at the same time a support...
... middle of paper ...
...told that context is crucial. But how and why is it crucial? Which sides of context are applicable to which types of text? If the contextual features are interdependently activated in an analysis, then an alteration in one of these features will automatically distress the importance of the others. Nevertheless, there arises a problem, as to what type of text linguistic analysis should deliver a more considerable basis for interpretation. Interpretation, hence, is the procedure of developing a discourse from a text. Interpretation will constantly be a function of the connection of text and context. Irrespectively of how meticulous the analysis of a specific text might be, the textual features must be contextually relevant. If that is the case, then we need to investigate how different contexts can influence the same text and give rise to various interpretations.
"Department ofASL - English Interpretation." Peter S. Cook. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. .
Graff gave an example of the author is directly speaking in the text in Don’t Blame The Eater, by using “I” (189). Another example he showed was in The Cask of Amontillado and in this case when the author used “I” he was not the narrator in this case, but the narrator was a character in the story(189). Graff suggests that one should look carefully at the work to identify the speaker. According to Graff, a tactic that can be used to identify the meaning of a literary work is to look at the conflict in it. Graff writes, “look for the conflict or debate in the literary work itself and then ask what the text is leading us to think about that conflict” (191). Then he suggest asking some questions to help the reader take a position on the meaning of the work. He emphasizes that the meaning of a literary work is always arguable and one should argue for what they thinks it means. He also included some templates to help starts to respond to others
The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Berlin [etc.]. Mouton De Gruyter, 1998. Print. The.
James Paul Gee explores the idea of discourse as a series of sentences that are modified based on context and recipient, in order to convey a particular meaning. Discourse is modified according to the recipient’s familiarity with the speaker/writer. The level of familiarity influences whether the speaker/writer uses vernacular, or non-vernacular language to express himself. Additionally, discourse changes according to social identities. Gee provides an example by describing a conversation between a waiter and his costumer. The costumer enacts his identity as a costumer, which is recognized by the waiter, who in turn modifies the language he uses to addresses him. Similarly, the costumer recognizes the identity of the waiter as waiter and proceeds
reader creates “supplementary meaning” to the text by unconsciously setting up tension, also called binary opposition. Culler describes this process in his statement “The process of thematic interpretation requires us to move from facts towards values, so we can develop each thematic complex, retaining the opposition between them” (294). Though supplementary meaning created within the text can take many forms, within V...
Finally we can say that the discussion in the class and the differences in the interpretations showed us clearly the differences between the perceptions of the readers on the same work. In the lights of the reader-oriented theories one can claim that there is no single truth or meaning derived from the text, the responses will change as the readers change.
Pragmatics Aspects: Deixis and Distance, reference and inference, conversational implicature, anaphoric and cataphoric reference, presupposition, entailment, direct and indirect speech acts and speech events, cultural context and cross cultural pragmatics, conversational analysis and background knowledge, denotation and connotation meaning, the four maxims and hedges.
Her approach is capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are embedded in a particular context, at a specific moment, and inevitably affect communication. Wodak’s work on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 led to the development of an approach she termed the Discourse-Historical Method. The term historical occupies a unique place in this approach. It denotes an attempt to systematically integrate all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text. As a result, the study of Wodak and her colleagues’ showed that the context of the discourse had a significant impact on the structure, function, and context of the utterances. This method is based on the belief that language “manifests social processes and interaction” and generates those processes as well (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999, p. 12). This method analyses language from a three-fold perspective: first, the assumption that discourse involves power and ideologies. “No interaction exists where power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role” (p. 12). Secondly, “discourse … is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same time or which have happened before” (p. 12). The third feature
Sociolinguists such as Eckert (2000) and Milroy (2004) have made provocative efforts to incorporate linguistic-anthropological concepts into sociolinguistic explanation (Woolard, 2008) and foundational studies by Creese (2008) include major works describing the paradigm. Rampton (2007), described the methodological tenants behind LE. LE research is yet a developing discipline that serves as a way of enriching a fundamentally linguistic project. In fact, the formulation of LE covers a large and older body of scholarship on language and culture (Rampton, Maybin, & Roberts, 2014), while simultaneously necessitating and interdisciplinary collaboration of theories and skills, thus blurring the boundaries between branches of variationist, sociological and ethnographic sociolinguistics (Tusting & Maybin, 2007). LE research on language change (Ekert, 2000) and a cultural model of cognition (Levinson, 1996) are worthwhile examples. However, the examples in the following sections serve more as a focus on contributions of LE to the field of
Deixis is the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected in the structures of languages themselves. Deixis concerns on the interpretation of utterances depends on the analysis of that context of utterance.
With the advent of the printing press and the protestant reformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Word of God became available to the common believer. Now, in the twenty first century, people all over the world, can read for themselves the scriptures in their own languages. Consider the Bible studies going on in any given country on any given evening, where people are encouraged to interact with the sacred scriptures. As encouraging as this may be, it may present a problem. Could discussions of what a scripture ‘means to me’ cloud out what the scripture originally meant? Is it even possible to know the author’s intent? Even if we could understand a first century text as its author intended, can we also grasp what it’s supposed to mean to us?
Such views influence both L1 and L2 reading studies. Kern (2000) explains the importance of the social and personal interpretation of reading, he says that readers have the freedom to interpret texts in any way they like if they do not deviate from the so-called interpretive constraints. In terms of fo...
“Context, in analysis of the humanities, refers to factors that surround a work of art or literature but may not be stated explicitly. This background information informs our deeper understanding of the work in question and allows us to analyze, rather than summarize, what we are studying. It is important to be aware of what the artist was experiencing in their time and reacting to or reacting against.” (https://valenciacollege.edu/west/arts-and-humanities/writing/historical-cultural.cfm )
113-117. 151-195. The. English: A Linguistic Tool Kit, (2012), (U214, Worlds of English, DVD ROM), Milton Keynes, The Open University. English in the World, (2012), (U214, Worlds of English, DVD ROM), Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Pragmatics focuses on language use within a given social environment, analysing how people interpret the various meanings language conveys. Yet, miscommunication arises due to situational contexts and thus, pragmatists “focus on what is not explicitly stated”, instead emphasising “what is communicated by the manner and style of utterance” (Finch, 2000). Consider a sign saying “Garage sale.” Naturally, without further information, we understand that there is a sale within an individual’s garage, rather than actual garages being sold. The example highlights how pragmatics furthers the understanding of an interpretation that is found past the words. This deep-seated meaning is transparent not by the reason of the semantics of the words themselves, but due to the contextual knowledge that is widely known. Ultimately pragmatics is the study of the ambiguity of language, as it examines the multiple meanings each sentence may have, which may lead to confusion, conflict and ambiguity. Therefore a sound understanding of pragmatics, may lead to a reduction in conflicts betw...