Shirt a Phobia

Sample Page

For other uses, see Context (disambiguation).
“Focal event” redirects here. For focal seizural events, see focal seizure.

In semiotics, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, context refers to those objects or entities which surround a focal event, in these disciplines typically a communicative event, of some kind. Context is “a frame that surrounds the event and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation”.[1]: 2–3  It is thus a relative concept, only definable with respect to some focal event within a frame, not independently of that frame.

In linguistics

In the 19th century, it was debated whether the most fundamental principle in language was contextuality or compositionality, and compositionality was usually preferred.[2] Verbal context refers to the text or speech surrounding an expression (word, sentence, or speech act). Verbal context influences the way an expression is understood; hence the norm of not citing people out of context. Since much contemporary linguistics takes texts, discourses, or conversations as the object of analysis, the modern study of verbal context takes place in terms of the analysis of discourse structures and their mutual relationships, for instance the coherence relation between sentences.

Neurolinguistic analysis of context has shown that the interaction between interlocutors defined as parsers creates a reaction in the brain that reflects predictive and interpretative reactions. It can be said then that mutual knowledge, co-text, genre, speakers, hearers create a neurolinguistic composition of context.[3]

Traditionally, in sociolinguistics, social contexts were defined in terms of objective social variables, such as those of class, gender, age or race. More recently, social contexts tend to be defined in terms of the social identity being construed and displayed in text and talk by language users.[citation needed]

The influence of context parameters on language use or discourse is usually studied in terms of language variation, style or register (see Stylistics). The basic assumption here is that language users adapt the properties of their language use (such as intonation, lexical choice, syntax, and other aspects of formulation) to the current communicative situation. In this sense, language use or discourse may be called more or less ‘appropriate’ in a given context.[citation needed]

In linguistic anthropology

In the theory of sign phenomena, adapted from that of Charles Sanders Peirce, which forms the basis for much contemporary work in linguistic anthropology, the concept of context is integral to the definition of the index, one of the three classes of signs comprising Peirce’s second trichotomy. An index is a sign which signifies by virtue of “pointing to” some component in its context, or in other words an indexical sign is related to its object by virtue of their co-occurrence within some kind of contextual frame.[4]

“High-context” and “low-context” cultures

This section is an excerpt from High-context and low-context cultures.[]

In anthropology, high-context and low-context cultures are ends of a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The distinction between cultures with high and low contexts is intended to draw attention to variations in both spoken and non-spoken forms of communication.[5] The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of communication abilities: utilizing gestures, relations, body language, verbal messages, or non-verbal messages.[6]

“High-” and “low-” context cultures typically refer to language groups, nationalities, or regional communities. However, the concept may also apply to corporations, professions, and other cultural groups, as well as to settings such as online and offline communication.[7]

High-context cultures often exhibit less-direct verbal and nonverbal communication, utilizing small communication gestures and reading more meaning into these less-direct messages.[8] Low-context cultures do the opposite; direct verbal communication is needed to properly understand a message being communicated and relies heavily on explicit verbal skills.[9]

The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation.[10]

In natural language processing

In word-sense disambiguation, the meanings of words are inferred from the context where they occur.[11]

In formal language theory

This section is an excerpt from Context-sensitive language.[]

In formal language theory, a context-sensitive language is a formal language that can be defined by a context-sensitive grammar, where the applicability of a production rule may depend on the surrounding context of symbols. Unlike context-free grammars, which can apply rules regardless of context, context-sensitive grammars allow rules to be applied only when specific neighboring symbols are present, enabling them to express dependencies and agreements between distant parts of a string.

These languages correspond to type-1 languages in the Chomsky hierarchy and are equivalently defined by noncontracting grammars (grammars where production rules never decrease the total length of a string). Context-sensitive languages can model natural language phenomena such as subject-verb agreement, cross-serial dependencies, and other complex syntactic relationships that cannot be captured by simpler grammar types,[citation needed] making them important for computational linguistics and natural language processing.

Contextual variables

Communicative systems presuppose contexts that are structured in terms of particular physical and communicative dimensions, for instance time, location, and communicative role.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ Goodwin, Charles; Duranti, Alessandro, eds. (1992). “Rethinking context: an introduction” (PDF). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–42. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 12, 2003. Retrieved February 19, 2017.
  2. ^ Janssen, T. M. (2012) Compositionality: Its historic context, in M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality, pp. 19-46, Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Finkbeiner, Rita; Meibauer, Jörg; Schumacher, Petra B. (2012). What is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. John Benjamins Publishing. ISBN 978-9027255792.
  4. ^ Silverstein, Michael (1992). “The Indeterminacy of Contextualization: When Is Enough Enough?”. In Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (eds.). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 55–76. ISBN 978-9027250346. Retrieved February 19, 2017.
  5. ^ Group, United Language. “Communicating in High Context vs. Low Context Cultures”. www.unitedlanguagegroup.com. Retrieved 2024-03-07. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  6. ^ Ramos, D. C. (2014). “High context”. In S. Thompson (ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity and social justice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Retrieved from http://db19.linccweb.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/rowmandasj/high_context/0
  7. ^ Wurtz, Elizabeth (November 2005). “Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High-Context Cultures and Low-Context Cultures”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (1): 274–299. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x.
  8. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). “High Context”. Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
  9. ^ Ramos, Carolina (2014). “Low Context”. Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice (1st ed.).
  10. ^ Cardon, Peter W. (October 2008). “A Critique of Hall’s Contexting Model”. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 22 (4): 399–428. doi:10.1177/1050651908320361. S2CID 145808976.
  11. ^ Anind Dey; Boicho Kokinov; David Leake; Roy Turner (24 June 2005). Modeling and Using Context: 5th International and Interdisciplinary Conference, CONTEXT 2005, Paris, France, July 5-8, 2005, Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-26924-3.

Further reading

  • For a review of the history of the principle of contextuality in linguistics, see Scholtz, Oliver Robert (1999) Verstehen und Rationalität: Untersuchungen zu den Grundlagen von Hermeneutik und Sprachphilosophie