Context in Language Use

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 (Malinowski 1935). 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 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” (Firth 1957: 223). Since
every utterance occurs within a “culturally determined context of situation” meaning is tied to that context
about the speaker and the ways he perceives himself, his roles in the 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.

1. 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 shoot that 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 frequently used with some particular words with which they
collocate.

2. Physical/environmental Context

Again we know that words mean on the basis of the physical or environmental context. 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

 On going 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

 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, heath, 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 are determined by other
variables such as education, age, status or class which may well be described as some features of the
social-cultural context.

3. 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 (Lavandera, 1988). 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
ofdiscourse, 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.

4. 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 system, religion, 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 as 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
as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, and in what manner. This competence is integral with
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.

5. 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 this 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 enjoy certain
privileges. In some cases these rather peculiar manner of expressions help to identify the individuals and
the institutions they are associated with.

Components 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 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 emphasize 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 (Halliday & Hasan 1976). A text is
therefore considered as 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.