The Context for Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition - Assignment Example

The Context for Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition The precise definition of context offered by anyone concerned with it will depend somewhat on the angle from which that person considers the word. Many disciplines rely on their own definitions of context in order to accomplish their work. Linguistics, philosophy, information technology, engineering, and education are just a few of these, and the definitions are as multiple as the disciplines themselves. For some in the technical world, context is seen as “the whole situation relevant to an application and its set of users” (Dey, 3). This includes all the information available that can be used to define or circumscribe a given situation in which a user is involved with an application (4). Such technicians proceed to use this information to create context-aware software. Close attention to these several definitions and explanations might, however, reveal a common ground upon which a universal concept of context might be built. Though context is often used and understood, it is such a broad and encompassing term that it can hardly be properly defined in a sentence or two. Though it deals with the surrounding condition of a situation, those conditions can take the form of several things, and perhaps that is why context shows up in so many disciplines. And, as it regards discourse analysis, it will be seen that reliance upon context is indispensable in gaining a complete and comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of any text, passage, speech, or other of the forms in which discourse presents itself. In education, especially reading, context is tangled up with prior knowledge and schema, and the study of it is in an effort to determine its use in the decoding of passages. Here, context is placed in relation to the written word, and it is defined by one as “the belief-revised integration of the reader’s prior knowledge with the reader’s internalized (co-)text” (Rappaport, 4). Here co-text refers to written text that surrounds the problematic word or phrase whose meaning the reader currently struggles to decode. In this discipline, experts often refer to “context clues,” which direct the student to the passage being read, delineating it as the context. One researcher cites six kinds of context clues in what is known as contextual analysis. Students are expected to gain insight into the text using hints provided by the context, and those hints come in the form of definition clues, synonym or comparison clues, contrast clues, example clues, and explanation clues. In addition to these clues from the text, context (as mentioned before) is extended to include inferential clues, which come not from the text being read but from the prior experiences of the reader (Doyle). So that context according to this view has both an internal and external aspect. However, once the text becomes internalized, context may be considered to be in the domain of the mind. In engineering, some consider context a “filter” that determines the meaning to be applied to certain terms or actions in a given situation. In fact, according to Yaser Bishr who seeks to prepare a foundation on which to base a contextual theory of geospatial applications, any definition of context must include such measures as follow. Contexts should define what is common to any input in a given situation. It should be restrictive, in that it allows only certain meanings of any vocabulary involved to actually be admitted as meaning to be derived from the situation. The truth of any statement of fact should depend upon “a collection of assumption which implicitly define context” (Bishr, 2), and all “facts” are understood to be factual only when a context is defined. Therefore, though the statement “all birds can fly” is untrue in Antarctica, it is true in the context of Brazil, where no penguins exist. This view of context also asserts that thought and interpretation across contexts is allowable; however, “when several contexts occur in a discussion, there is a common context above all of them into which all terms and predicates can be lifted” (2). In addition, such temporal aspects as location in time and space should be considered in gauging the truth of given input or statements. This view further extends context to include all that is connected to a proposition or statement that is not explicitly stated in the proposition. Contexts are noted also to be infinitely extended and therefore never completely definable (Bishr, 2). Philosophy and computer science overlap in the study of knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR), which necessitates a thorough understanding of context. Because of this, there is ongoing research into the nature of context and how it can be formalized. It has been shown to be true that specific situations sometimes exist in which certain axioms true in a certain context do not necessarily concur with reality when placed somewhere else. In this case, a broadening of context might be desired in order support the axiom’s truth. It is for this reason that persons have sought to formalize the notion of context. Two formal theories of context discussed by Bouquet, et al. are termed divide and conquer and compose and conquer. The divide-and-conquer theory of context posits that the universal set of all components of language can be divided up or localized into the items that pertain to a certain situation as distinct from another. These localized items can be given the name contexts, and are taken together because they possess a certain commonality. They can be represented as all the knowledge available about a given topic (for example, flying objects) broken down into the knowledge about its component parts (such as birds, planes, rockets, baseballs). Contexts can be related to other contexts hierarchically, thereby making it possible to climb from one level of reasoning to another (Bouquet et al., 7) This feature Stephen Levinsohn describes as “Probably the most important structural feature of schemata” (25), which, as mentioned before, is deemed to be a very important aspect of context. They can also be related laterally, giving its components the ability to widen the scope of the situation by including other contexts. The compose-and-conquer theory appears to approach the subject of context from the opposite direction. This theory is based upon “assumptions that local (domain specific, goal directed) theories of the world are the building blocks of what an agent knows, and that the totality of the agent's knowledge is given by composing such local theories through a collection of rules that connect them into a more comprehensive (but still partial) representation of the world” (Bouquet et al., 10). An interesting component of this theory of context is that each part (context) is considered to have no a priori relationship to any other part. That is, the context within a particular person would consist of all that he knows, and the components of this knowledge are discrete entities with no necessary connection among them. However, taken all together, they provide the general context or lens in which any new situation that arises will be viewed or analyzed. Apparently related to these two theories are the bottom-up and top-down processes that, according to Dooley and Levinsohn, lead to the development of mental representations. He relates that the first uses each component of the situation to create a context, and he uses the example of people sitting at tables, receiving food, paying and then not cleaning up after themselves. Using this information to construct a context he describes as remarkably more time-consuming than the top-down process, which simply “jumps to a hypothesis” (Dooley and Levinsohn, 26) and uses prior knowledge of a restaurant to identify and make sense of the components of the situation. Although both processes somehow denote the creation or utilization of context, the one precedes the other. This concurs with the idea that context is dynamic, in that in order to have the opportunity to jump to the hypothesis of restaurant, some time in the (probably distant) past, the context had to be carefully created. So, first context was input, but quickly became the background available upon which all subsequent input can act. One linguistic definition of context models holds that they are “subjective representations of communicative events or situations” (Van Dijk, 11). This gives the idea of context as something that exists outside of the salient aspects of discourse, and which is able to be manipulated by participants in the discourse toward the creation of similar or separate meanings. In fact, context has been defined as a player in both the background and the foreground of discourse, as it has been described as a dynamic rather than a static phenomenon. Therefore, while the sentences that make up discourse at first may be interpreted in light of context, later on, those sentences become subsumed in the schema of the audience or of the fellow player involved in the discourse, so that it soon becomes part of the context itself. Glanzberg and others refer to anaphora as an example of this. In such an utterance as Margaret bought me a gift. She does it all the time, the deictic pronoun “she” is understood to refer to Margaret. Though Margaret is introduced in the first sentence, she later becomes embedded in the context in a way that allows for her being, subsequently, the natural referent of the word “she.” Therefore, according to this view, context is a very fluid concept that changes and expands as the situation progresses in time. In his research paper, Context and Discourse, Michael Glanzberg describes context as something that combines with a phrase or sentence in order to reveal the import of the given utterance (2). He borrows the from P. Grice the concept of taking the idea of a proposition to mean what is actually said or expressed in the words themselves (and not what is implied). Expounding on this, he asserts that context adds breadth to that linear dimension and may be said to couch the literal in its extended meaning. Then, acknowledging the complexity of context and its ultimate inextricability from the “utterance” or the level of literal meaning, Glanzberg goes on to attempt a construct of the constitution of context. Of what is context made? He proposes two theories of context in order to facilitate this discovery of the nature of context: the index theory of context and the presupposition theory of context. The first proceeds from what is termed the “logical form” of a sentence, which is defined as the “a preliminary semantic representation of the sentence, appropriate for semantic interpretation” (Glanzberg, 4) or, in other words, the basic structure from which optimal meaning can be gained. The words that make up this logical form are given meanings, and these meanings combine in sentences that contain certain truth values or “truth conditions” (4). These values are specifically manipulable in context, as “semantic values may have parameters, and context sets the values of these parameters” (4). These parameters are set by such boundaries as “speaker, hearer, location, [and] demonstrated object” (5). Using an example given earlier, the referent “she” as it refers to Margaret is set by the context in which it is uttered. Had it been another situation—another context—then the word “she” might have referred to another person entirely. Therefore, the amorphous quality of certain words or utterances, and even of sentences, are given concrete shape and definition within context, which is the agent that sets the index or parameter in which they are allowed to act. The presupposition theory of context is based upon the concept that persons have understandings about certain things before they enter into any verbal transaction. Glanzberg writes, “The context of an utterance is the collection of propositions presupposed by participants in the conversation at the point of utterance” (6). A person usually formulates an opinion or a prediction of what a conversation is to be about. Feelings or ideas about the speaker or situation, immediate prior experiences, moods of the conversers, responsibilities, and even future engagements, all have a hand in what takes place between or among speakers and hearers in discourse. In other words, these all contribute to the formation of a context for the discourse. Therefore, “context is a species of content” (5). It is a background and an unuttered, yet equally important aspect of discourse. These two theories of context differ mainly in their emphases. While the first focuses on how the situation regards or shapes the roles of the players involved, the second deals with how the contributions of the players themselves are fashioned by their own pre-set ideas, beliefs, experiences, and moods. What is common to both the index and presupposition theories is that they consider context as providing some kind of information that is relevant to the situation at hand. So relevant, in fact, is this information—this context—that it defines and labels the situation in such a way that it is distinguishable from all other situations that have ever occurred or that ever will. Via his definition of the dimensions and parameters drawn by context, Glanzberg’s index theory as an insight into the question “What is context?” gives us some further leads. It is possible to take a keener look at speaker, hearer, location, and object in light of how they constitute context. The speaker (or writer/player, etc.) in effect lends his presence to the context and somehow adds something to the definition of what is uttered. This “something” is super-added to the verbal aspect of discourse; it is assumed to be something more than just what the speaker says. The fact that the speaker is who he is and not someone else is material to the construction of that context. The hearer (or audience/reader/congregation, etc.) and the demonstrated object (third person or thing) contribute to context in a similar way to that of the speaker. In bringing his own experiences to the situation, he customizes the context in a way that is very local to him. In fact, the immense variability of context can be inferred from this, as any player in the discourse can be said to contribute innumerable variables. These variables may (and arguably do) consist of just about anything imaginable, from life experiences to DNA. These determine not just the meanings that the hearer derives from what is said in the given context, but also the responses made to those utterances, which would in turn continue to fashion the dynamic context as well as the discourse. Location might also be an important contributor to context for several reasons. Mood and ambience are usually determined in large part by the setting of a particular situation, so that similar utterances might have different effects in one place as opposed to another. The context of a particular situation, therefore, changes with location, since meaning and understanding change. For instance, a child or teenager might be more inclined to embarrassment over his parents’ scolding when in public than if that same reprimand were given in private. The setting changes the context of the interaction, making the one less desirable than the other. In such cases, the context may even be mainly responsible for the outcome of the situation, as the child might become more hostile in public than he or she would have in private. Here, context might be seen to transcend the background and become an even more significant player in the action. Ideologies have been identified by Van Dijk as playing a prominent role in the construction of context, and have been defined as “a special form of social cognition shared by groups” (12). In socio-political theory, context has been identified with ideologies and has been thought to determine the users’ choices of words and phrases and the meanings purported to be derived from them. It was mentioned above when considering Glanzberg’s presupposition theory, that people’s ideas about a given situation are determiners of context. This is at the heart of the ideological approach to context. Since social cognition refers to the ways in which cognitive processes are involved with interaction on the social level, then, in the words of Van Dijk himself, ideologies “form the basis of the social representations and practices of group members, including their discourse” (12). This gives more authority to the idea that things exists outside of words themselves that affect the meanings and outcomes of discourse. Ideologies are more than just ideas possessed by individuals; they are ideas embraced by entire groups in societies. Membership within a certain group affords individual knowledge about issues that may or may not be common knowledge. It is common to denote persons that share certain beliefs or ideas by a given name, such as feminist or liberal, and those names usually allow for a sufficiently accurate prediction of the presuppositions that such persons will bring to a certain conversation. These people might be considered as having more than the usual amount of knowledge on a certain topic, and they take this knowledge with them into every conversation. This means that ideologies are components of context, and this at the point where context lies within the individual who participates in discourse. However, the ideological approach to context goes further to suggest that ideologies actually affect the words themselves that do come out in discourse. People often use the language of their particular group or belief system, and an example might be found in the use of politically correct terms. In addition, as ideologies often occur in opposites (liberal versus conservative, romantic versus classical), and as people often embrace multiple belief systems, it is reasonable to allow that conflicting principles might be contained in those ideologies. The term given by Van Dijk to a person’s feelings on a certain issue is attitude. People’s attitudes, then, or how they choose to act in certain situations that are concerned with conflicting principles (conflicts of interest) indicate that these ideologies are structured in a hierarchical way. Any principle that gives way to another would be shelved on a lower tier, and the prevailing principle can be said to be of more importance within and between ideologies. Since ideologies are components of context, and can so decisively affect attitudes, then it is natural that they should affect discourse. This mode of reasoning leads to the proposition that context does play a very important role in discourse, and therefore should play a dominant part in the analysis of discourse. The word “discourse” has constantly been entering into this discussion of context, and it is now necessary to (attempt to) provide a comprehensive definition of discourse and its analysis. The difficulty braved when defining discourse is due to the existence of so many different types. They include monologues and dialogues, and these can be presented in many different ways. A monologue can come in the form of a speech given to a large or small audience, or it may be in the form of a soliloquy. In addition, both soliloquies and speeches may be written down, in official documents or in poems, plays, letters, or narratives. Monologues are generally divided into paragraphs, each paragraph encapsulating all that is relevant to a particular idea which exists as a part of the whole discourse. Dialogue is also a form of discourse that may involve two or more people. Dialogue, like monologues, might be spoken or written. Conversation, which takes place on a grand scale every second of the day, is one of the most widely used forms of discourse. It is dialogue, and it is widely used also in plays, narratives, letters, and even poetry. Written conversations are in existence today on a much grander scale in internet chat rooms and with instant messaging. Dialogues are divided into its component parts mainly by the speakers, and these divisions are identified by terms such as turns and moves. Dooley and Levinsohn write, “What a given speaker says in a dialogue before another one speaks is referred to as a conversational turn, [and] within a turn, there may be different functional moves” (5). Then there are also initiating, resolving, and countering moves, as in a game. The board on which this type of discourse takes place, as well as the rules by which the game is played might be considered the context. As in a game, the contextual rules have to be observed, and learning these rules will go a far way in helping the researcher find out why conversations, monologues, and any other forms of discourse take the turns they do. There are many situations that might prove how critical context is in the analysis of discourse. An analysis of the foreign policy of the United States, Great Britain, or even the most insignificant island in the Caribbean cannot fail to involve the socio-political, economic, and ideological contexts of the country and its leaders. Knowledge of all different forms of context (ideology, presupposition, ethnography, index, etc) will help understand, for example, Tony Blair and George W. Bush’s reaffirmation of NATO as the vehicle for transatlantic security in 2001 (“Joint Statement”). Certainly the economic context of Serbia would give insight into the discourse involved in the recent loan-extension negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (Associated Press). On a much smaller scale, context does have much to do with the discourse of the common man in everyday situations. In addition to speech act theory, pragmatics, ethnography, conversational and variational analyses, Schiffren also posits an interactional sociolinguistics approach to discourse analysis. According to systemic-functional linguistic and social semiotics, how discourse is structured is definitely to be analyzed in light of the dimensions of situations’ contexts, which are given in the forms of field (domain), tenor (roles) and mode (Van Dijk, 19). The field represents “the writer/speaker’s relationship to the subject matter” (00). For instance, the writer might be an expert on the particular topic, and the subject matter might be considered his or her field. The field may also be common knowledge, and therefore the topic would grant just about anyone easy access. Van Dijk further elaborates on aspects of context that give more insight into its importance in analyzing discourse. Just as “people need to be aware of the domain [or field] in which they are speaking” (21), discourse analysts need also to be aware of the domain in which the speakers act. Politicians and doctors know their spheres of action, their domain, and this knowledge influences their discourse with others. A physician probing a patient does so in professional manner, yet a caring one might slant his questions in an understanding manner. A lawyer writing a brief might be found using archaic judicial terms that he might not use in court to a jury comprised of non-lawyers. People know the domain or field in which they exist, and they speak and act accordingly. They code-switch, depending on the situation. In analyzing their speeches, context must be considered. The roles of participants in speech and have much to do with tenor, and they affect how discourse is formed and understood. Van Dijk gives three types of roles that are important in discourse and its analysis: communicative, interactional, and social roles (22). The communicative role denotes a person’s ostensible function in the conversation, whether it be speaker (author), listener (reader), interlocutor, or mere observer. Interactional roles (tenors) tell of the relationship between or among those involved in discourse and are also delineators of context. Participants might have a superior-subordinate relationship, or they might be equals; they might be close friends or new acquaintances. These variables of context will account for much of what happens in discourse. Van Dijk gives the example of speakers in parliament who give speeches that support or detract proposals made by the government. In looking at such a speech, a discourse analyst would (or should) be interested not only in what is said, but why it is said, and the context as defined here (political affiliation, political stance, as well as the speaker’s relationship to the proponents of the proposal) would prove to be very helpful in answering such a question. The social role defines the societal group or sector to which persons who engage in discourse belong. The categories or parameters might be given by age, ethnicity, profession, and political affiliation (Van Dijk, 22). It has already been shown how these kinds of factors contribute to context, and discourse analysis, therefore, would apply to these in order to perform a comprehensive examination of any discourse. The age of persons involved in discourse might account for any slang terms used. Ethnicity might account for vernacular as well as for culturally defined references. Profession might account for any jargon present in the discourse, while educational level would be responsible for the presence or lack of formal expressions and uncommon words. Political affiliation and social cognition would account for perhaps varying tones in reference to politically or socially volatile subjects. Such is the attitude behind political correctness. Feminists might be very strict on using “his or her,” rather than just “his” for non gender-specific references. Many textbooks are written with his in mind, and even use “her” where “his” might have previously been used. All these factors not only account for the contents discourse, but also for the way they are received—whether they are understood and/or appreciated by those on the receiving end of the discourse. Any analysis of discourse would have to take these contexts into consideration, as they are of immense importance to the actual formation of the discourse. Mode represents “the means of communication” (Harman, Bangou and Ramirez, 14). This may range from a quick phone call to a long address; a short text message to a lengthy letter. The situation might determine, for example, how much time is available for discourse, and the situation might also determine its mode. Medium theory is one that takes advantage of the contribution to context that is made by the mode by which discourse is given. The paramount importance of context in the analysis of discourse can perhaps be best demonstrated by using a concrete example. One might consider for analysis a small portion of the letter written by Martin Luther King, Jr. on in April of 1963. MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN: The letter opens with a conventional use of the word “dear,” but the words “my” and “fellow” added to it demonstrates a desire in the speaker to identify himself as the equal of his readers. It is context that leads to this conclusion, as during that time, racism had separated him from the fellowship of these white clergymen to whom he writes. His reference to them as clergymen might be interpreted as an attempt to recall to them the justice that is advocated in the Bible, a justice which they seemed to have forgotten, reminding them that they are ones who profess belief in the Scriptures. While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." The use of the word “confined” rather than “locked up” demonstrates the mindset of one who seeks neither pity nor to point an accusing finger, but yet one who is willing to allow the dishonour of his situation to be known, unashamed of where his activities have taken him. The words “came across” gives the impression of his reply being an off-hand and unemotional response, and might be still as a result of his resolution to maintain amicability throughout the whole discourse. In achieving his goals, it would befit King to remain irreproachable before the law and the public. This context guides him to use caution and prudence in addressing these men. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. The formality evident in the phrase “if I sought to answer” (as well as in the rest of the letter) demonstrates the distance that does lie between King and the clergymen to whom he writes. His formality also accords him a certain level of elevation, and it very possibly stems from the fact that he desires to continue his showing himself to be of their calibre in education and status. The language, as well as the mention of secretaries, also accomplishes this. In addition, King was a black man acting in a state where people of his race were marginalised, and this might also account for his formality and politeness to people who had written a thesis that he clearly opposed. This, too, may account for his hinting that taking time out to respond to their statement rather than others was something he considered “constructive work.” But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. The first line of this section borders on sarcasm, as he refers to them as persons of “genuine good will.” This conclusion might be reached again by looking at the context of the discourse. These are people who have slighted and undermined his efforts at gaining equality for his race. However, King might also be accorded sincerity, as the tone of the statement to which he responds does seem subdued and calm, though the content was antagonistic (Carpenter, et al.). In this ambiguous context, it is not hard to understand why King might (consciously or unconsciously) have injected a bit of ambiguity of his own. In addition to this, the uncertainty in the letter mirrors the fact that much hung in the balance of justice (the courts) at the time of writing the letter. In addition, a certain determination to be “patient and reasonable” can be detected in the tone of the discourse, which might be attributed to the fact that his situation (being jailed) required of him a greater amount of effort in order to express civility. Discourse analysis relies heavily upon context, and in many ways readers, hearers, observers, and analysts alike automatically draw inferences from context without even thinking. Though the relationship between discourse and context is very complicated, humans grasp it rather quickly and utilise it automatically. Because context settles so naturally into discourse, it is essential for analysts to pay very close attention to context when attempting a deconstruction of discourse. In pursuit of this, all the aspects of context must be thoroughly studied and understood. The various ways in which context becomes a part of the human mind and actions and creep into discourse are multifarious. They range from prior occurrences (such as even the most recent statement of a dialogue) to culture, and even to beliefs gained during the earliest years of childhood. All facets of context have a bearing on discourse at some time or another, and though all the facets of context have not (indeed, could not have) been discussed here, it is of immense importance that they be considered in as detailed a manner as possible in discourse analysis. Works Cited Associated Press. “IMF Adjours Serbia Loan Negotiations.” Forbes.com. 31 Oct. 2005. Bishr, Yaser. “What is Your Context? Position Paper.” Image Matters LLC. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/nga/docs/Bishr_Position.pdf Bouquet, Paolo, Chiara Ghidini, Faust Giunchiglia, and Erico Blanzieri. Theories and Uses of Context in Knowledge, Representation, and Reasoning. Elsevier Science. 2002. Carpenter, C. C. J. et al. “Statement by Alabama Clergymen.” 12 Apr. 1963. Dey, Anind K. Understanding and Using Context. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fce/ctk/pubs/PeTe5-1.pdf Doyle, Barbara S. Contextual Analysis. Arkansas State Univ. 2004. Dooley, Robert A. and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Analysing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts. SIL International and U. of North Dakota. 2000. Glanzberg, Michael. Context and Discourse. Davis: UC Davis. < http://www- philosophy.ucdavis.edu/glanzberg/contextdiscourse.pdf> Harman, Ruth, Francis Bangou, and J. Andres Ramirez. Register: Context is in Text. 1994. King, Jr. Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” April 13, 1963. Rappaport, William J. “What is the context for contextual vocabulary acquisition?” Buffalo: State U. of NY. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/context.auconf.pdf Schiffrin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse Oxford: Blackwell. 1994. Van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse, Ideology, and Context. Folia Lingustica. 35 (1-2). Berlin: European Linguistic Society. White House, The. “Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.” 23 February 2001. Read More