The Context of Pragmatics in the Language use

Language use in this article will definitely refer to the use of linguistic codes (words) in the context of social life since pragmatics is the study of language use by individuals in specific social situations and whose actions are actually influenced by these situations. The study of language in its social context began with the rise of popular interests in sociolinguists, pragmatics, discourse analysis and ethnography of speaking in the 1970s, particularly as a reaction to purely abstract linguistics.

Scholars were concerned with a more balanced way of studying language, other than focusing on language structures alone. To them, it was crucial to also examine the relationship between language and society and how language use is influenced by the social context. The goal of this kind of contextual study according to Dell Hymes (1974) is to:

(i)               involve language in practical issues such as education, minority groups and language policies

(ii)             show how social function gives form to the ways in which linguistic features are encountered in actual life

(iii)          identify social functions and discover ways in which linguistic features are selected and grouped to serve them (sharing a concern with social realism and validity)

(iv)           show that socially constituted linguistics is concerned with social as well as the referential meaning and with language as part of communicative conduct and social action (quoted in Lavandera (1988:4}.

In this article, we shall be looking at the features and components of context and how various contexts can influence meaning and language use. We shall also see why context is so crucial in the study and understanding of linguistic or discourse pragmatics.

 Meaning and Features of Context

Context refers to the situation, within which language functions. It may be physical/environmental, social context or institutional situation, including events, time, culture or social conventions that can influence language use. The first use of the term “context of situation” is attributable to Bronislaw Malinowski, a social anthropologist, who in his study of language behaviours among some native Indians concluded that language is a “mode of action” and as social behaviour is closely tied to the relevant social situation in which it is used. 

The meaning of words was not to be restricted to sounds of utterances or their grammatical structure but must include the “pragmatic context” in which they are uttered. J.R. Firth (a linguist) expounded on this study and in his contextual theory of meaning argues that context is the bedrock of any linguistic enterprise because “normal linguistic behaviour as a whole is meaning effort, directed towards the maintenance of appropriate patterns of life”. 

Since every utterance occurs within a “culturally determined context of situation” meaning is tied to that context of the speaker and the ways he perceives himself, his roles in society and his relationship with other members of the society. As pragmatics investigates context-based meaning it will be impossible to talk about pragmatics without reference to the context in which utterances are made. And as a matter of fact, linguistic codes are actually selected and used according to some social sets of standards. It is contextual considerations that make the difference between structural linguistics and sociolinguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis. We shall look at the features of context as we examine the various types of contexts.

Linguistic Context

This refers to the set of words in the same sentence or utterance. This forms the linguistic environment that determines the sense of the words in the context. For example, if the word “shoot” appears in a linguistic context along with other words like “dribble,” “penalty,” “goal”, or “over the bar”, we immediately understand the shootthat is meant. If on the other hand, the same word appears with words like “soldier”, “artillery” or “war,” the meaning is immediately known. The linguistic context (also known as co-text) of a word or words, therefore, has a strong effect on what we may think such words mean. Generally words occur together and are frequently used with some particular words with which they collocate.

Physical/environmental Context

Again we know that words mean on the basis of the physical or environmental context. As we saw in Unit 1, the meaning of the word “drink” on a library shelve is different from its meaning on the door of a canteen. The physical context definitely influenced our interpretation of the word. Our understanding of words or expressions is much more tied to the physical context particularly in terms of the time and place being referred to in the expressions. Other features of the context include:

•              Participants, e.g. boys, girls, men, traders

•              Ongoing activity, e.g. playing, chatting, debating

•              The place, e.g. church, class, stadium, dining table

•              The time, e.g. time of the day or season

Hymes (1964) identifies the following general contextual features:

•              Participants, i.e. people involved, e.g. husband and wife; neighbours; colleagues; teachers and students etc.

•              Topic i.e. what the discourse is about, e.g. politics, religion, race, health, etc.

•              Setting, i.e. where the event takes place, e.g. at home, at work, at school etc.

•              Channel, e.g. medium – speech, writing, non-verbal)

•              Code (dialect/style)

•              Message form (debate, chat etc)

All of the above features may not rigidly be ascribed to the physical context. For example, the channel/medium or code through which the piece of discourse is carried out is determined by other variables such as education, age, status or class which may well be described as some features of the social-cultural context.

Interpersonal Context

The interpersonal context focuses on psychological considerations that influence speech or talk. There is no doubt that the state of the mind of the speaker or writer places some constraints on the quality or amount of interactions s/he engages in. His inputs and reactions are predictable if he is sad, happy, excited or bored. Critics of pragmatic emphasis on such criteria as intention, belief or rationality, argue that the understanding of text and talk is not dependent on elements rooted in psychology rather, on social factors such as “power” and “status” and how they are distributed and maintained linguistically in the society. 

Interestingly many social analysts of discourse, among who are also interested in pragmatics do indeed recognise the influence of socio-cultural variables that affect the production of discourse, or text. But the fact remains that individual speakers or writers do make linguistic choices and decide what to say and how to say it. Therefore factors that place constraint on their ability to do this (e.g. state of the mind) is of interest to pragmatic analysts.

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 4

In your own words describe what is meant by “interpersonal context” and say why it is essential in a pragmatic study of text or talk.

Situational/socio-cultural Context

Unlike the other contexts discussed above, the situational context concerns mainly with socio-cultural considerations. The context of culture includes beliefs, value systems, religion, and conventions that control individuals’ behaviour and their relationship with others. These socio­cultural rules of behaviour often guide them in order to communicate effectively with one another. Some beliefs or conventions may be considered to be universal, while some are culture-specific, especially those that guide utterances, non-verbal communication and other forms of social behaviour that may be interpreted meaningfully.

Knowledge of socio-cultural rules of behaviours brings up the idea of “communicative competence” which according to Dell Hymes (1972) is the ability of the speaker to know when to speak, when not and what to talk about with whom, when, where, and in what manner. This competence is integral to attitudes, values and motivations concerning language, its features and uses in the most suitable and appropriate contexts. Take a newspaper headline like “The butcher of Zamfara” for an example. How would a non-Nigerian interpret it considering the general meaning of “butcher”? How would you interpret it – as a Nigerian who is familiar with the controversy surrounding the implementation of the Sharia in the Northern states? Take another example:

A little child:               (scribbles unintelligibly on the surface of a white

paper and presents it to his father, smiling) Daddy see…!

Father:             (hugs the child) ah. beautiful, this is the most brilliant

writing I’ve ever seen.

You will agree with me that the father has applied the best communicative etiquette in his response to his child’s writing, considering the context and the participant in the communication event.

Institutional Context

Much of what we refer to here as “institutional context” may have actually been covered as part of the social/cultural context, but it is necessary to identify certain elements of the context in some specialized kind of settings like educational institutions, which impose some constraints in language use. Take a Convent or a purely Islamic institution for example there are certain conventions there that govern people’s mode of communication and behaviour which is not just “social” or “cultural.”

We consider this as institutional and much of these institutional standards or “common sense assumptions” (Fairclough, 1989), determine social behaviour and individuals simply imbibe them as natural and unchanging. For example, there are certain ways people must greet one another in some of these places. Expressions such as “bless you” or “it is well” in some Christina mission universities have become almost institutionalised that people are made to believe that unless they greet each other that way they may never be able to enjoy certain privileges. In some cases, this rather peculiar manner of expressions help to identify the individuals and the institutions they are associated with.

helpsComponents of Discourse Context

M.A.K. Halliday (1976) identifies three components of the context which we shall discuss in this sub-section. According to Halliday, situation types can be represented as a complex of three dimensions, namely:

(i)                The ongoing activity

(ii)              The role of relationships

(iii)           The symbolic channel (i.e. the medium, either written or spoken)

The ongoing activity is referred to as the Field which is the total event in which the text (or utterance) is functioning. It is the primary aim of the discourse and what subject matter the interactants must explore.

According to Hudson (1980), the field of discourse is the “what about”, “the why” of discourse: it may be political, religious, academic, health, marriage etc. Very often an individual’s choice of words in a conversation is governed by the field of discourse.

The role relationships are referred to as the tenor. It is the “with whom” of discourse. The tenor shows the kind of social relationships that exists among interactants; type of role interaction (how they take turns and what influences it) and how temporal or permanent such relationships are. It also mirrors the identities of the people involved. Some social variables such as age, status, education etc. influence how individuals assign roles to one another in conversations.

The mode of discourse is the function of the text in the event, including the medium of expression. This is the third component of the dimensions of the context. Hudson calls it “the how” of discourse. Again the subject matter of a discourse and the relationship between the interactants often determine the best mode of expressing the text, either in writing or verbally. Legal documents for example demand writing, while interpersonal communication is usually done orally. The choice of words is also influenced by the formality or informality of the relationship that exists among speakers or writers. Look at this example: two people address the same person (Oluwatosin Adeyemi) in the following terms:

A:        You’re welcome Miss Adeyemi (formal)

B:        Hi Tosin! (informal)

Text and Context

As we noted in Unit 1, rather than emphasising the sentence, utterance, text or talk is emphasized in pragmatics. A text is a unit of language in use (Halliday & Hasan 1976). It is any utterance or passage spoken or written of any length that forms a unified whole. It is not a grammatical unit like a clause or sentence but could be a sentence, paragraph, or a whole passage. It is not limited by size and therefore does not consist of sentences, but rather realized by sentences.

A text is therefore considered a meaningful unit rather than a grammatical unit. This means that it may not be grammatically correct but meaningful and analyzable as a discourse unit. The meaning associated with a text is realised in a context. As we have already discussed, the meaning of any text or utterance largely depends on any of the various types of context identified above.

CONCLUSION

Context is a requisite concept in pragmatics. As a matter of fact, pragmatics has been defined by many scholars as the study of context­based meaning. In other words, the study of pragmatics is the study of how language use is influenced by the context. Context is the central “influencer” of meaning especially considering how people interact with one another in different situations.

In your own personal interactions and relationships, you will agree that all the time you were able to communicate effectively with people because you recognise the kind of social attitudes and conventions that guided your interactions and you responded exactly the way you were expected to respond. You were able to apply your knowledge of the society and its cultures in your interactions and you talked when you should and kept silent at other times. All these are factors of the context which determined the way you related with others as a member of the same society.