THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN INTERPRETATION

THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN INTERPRETATION

1.1 Pragmatics and Discourse Context

Discourse analysis take account of the context in which a piece of discourse occurs. Some of the most obvious linguistic elements which require contextual information for their interpretation are the deictic forms such as here, now, I, you, this, and that. In order to interprete this elements in piece of discourse, it this necessary to know (at least) who the speaker and the hearer are, and the time and place of the production of the discourse. The discourse analyst’s approach to linguistic data differs from that of the formal linguist and leads to specialized use of certain terms. In using terms such as reference, presupposition, implicature,  and inference,  the discourse analyst is describing what speakers and hearers are doing, and not the relationship which exists between one sentence or proposition and another.

1.2 Reference

In presenting the traditional view of reference, Lyons (1968: 404) says that ‘ the relationship which hold between words and things is the relationship of reference : words refer to things’.  Yet, Lyons, in a more recent statement on the nature of reference, makes the following point: ‘it is the speaker who refers (by using some appropriate expression) : he invest the expression with reference by the act of referring’ (1977: 177). There is support for such a pragmatic concept of reference in Strawson’s (1950) claim that “referring” is not something an expression does; it is something that someone can use an expression to do.

Example :

A: My cousin is going to Bali + he’s happy

B: How long has he been away for or has he just been

In the following conversational fragment, we shall say, for example, that speaker A uses the expression my cousin and he to refer to one individual. In the preceding conversational fragment, we shall also say that speaker A treats the information that she has a cousin as presupposed and speaker B, in her question, indicates that she has accepted this presupposition. We shall take the view that the notion of presupposition required in discourse in discourse analysis is pragmatic presupposition, that is, ‘defined  in terms of assumptions the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge’ ( Givon, 1979a:50).

1.3 Presupposition

Presupposition is what the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. The concept of presupposition is often treated as the relationship between two propositions. In the case below, we have a sentence that contains a proposition (p) and another proposition (q), which is easily presupposed by any listener. However, the speaker can produce a sentence by denying the proposition (p), obtaining as a result the same presupposition (q).

Debora’s cat is cute. (p)

Debora has a cat. (q)

P >> q

When I say that Debora’ s cat is cute, this sentence presupposes that Debora has a cat. In  

Debora’ s cat is not cute. (NOT p)

the same thing holds true, that is, it presupposes that she has a cat. This property of presupposition is generally described as constancy under negation. Basically, it means that the presupposition of a statement will remain constant (i.e. still true) even when that statement is negated.

1.4 Implicature

In addition to identifying and classifying the phenomenon of implicature, Grice developed a theory designed to explain and predict conversational implicatures. He also sought to describe how such implicatures are understood. Grice (1975: 26–30) postulated a general Cooperative Principle and four maxims specifying how to be cooperative. It is common knowledge, he asserted, that people generally follow these rules for efficient communication.

Cooperative Principle. Contribute what is required by the accepted purpose of the conversation.

Maxim of Quality. Make your contribution true; so do not convey what you believe false or unjustified.

Maxim of Quantity. Be as informative as required.

Maxim of Relation. Be relevant.

Maxim of Manner. Be perspicuous; so avoid obscurity and ambiguity, and strive for brevity and order.

1.5 Inference

Inference is the act of drawing a conclusion by deductive reasoning from given facts. The conclusion drawn is also called an inference. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic. Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology.

Accuracy of inductive inferences

The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations. Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations.

 

Examples of deductive inference

Greek philosophers defined a number of syllogisms, correct three part inferences, that can be used as building blocks for more complex reasoning. We begin with the most famous of them all:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The reader can check that the premises and conclusion are true, but Logic is concerned with inference: does the truth of the conclusion follow from that of the premises? The validity of an inference depends on the form of the inference. That is, the word "valid" does not refer to the truth of the premises or the conclusion, but rather to the form of the inference. An inference can be valid even if the parts are false, and can be invalid even if the parts are true. But a valid form with true premises will always have a true conclusion.

For example, consider the form of the following symbological track:

1. All apples are blue.
2. A banana is an apple.
3. Therefore, a banana is blue.

For the conclusion to be necessarily true, the premises need to be true.

Now we turn to an invalid form.

1. All A are B.
2. C is a B.
3. Therefore, C is an A.

To show that this form is invalid, we demonstrate how it can lead from true premises to a false conclusion.

1. All apples are fruit. (True)
2. Bananas are fruit. (True)
3. Therefore, bananas are apples. (False)

A valid argument with false premises may lead to a false conclusion:

1. All fat people are Greek.
2. John Lennon was fat.
3. Therefore, John Lennon was Greek.

When a valid argument is used to derive a false conclusion from false premises, the inference is valid because it follows the form of a correct inference.

A valid argument can also be used to derive a true conclusion from false premises:

1. All fat people are musicians
2. John Lennon was fat
3. Therefore, John Lennon was a musician

In this case we have two false premises that imply a true conclusion.

1.6 The Context Of Situation

2.1 Features of Context

Consider the two invented scenarios in which an identical utterance is produced by distict speaker.

1. speaker: a young mother, hearer: her mother-in-law, place: park, by a duckpond, time: sunny afternoon in September 1962. they are watching the young mother’s two-year-old son chasing ducks and the mother-in-law has just remarked that her son, the child’s father, was rather backward at this age. The young mother say:

I don’t think Adam’s quick

2. speaker: a students, hearers: a set of students, place: sitting round a coffee table in the refectory, time: evening in March 1980. John, one of the group has just told a joke. Everyone laughs except Adam. Then Adam laughs. One of the students says:

I don’t think Adam’s quick

(in each case phonological prominence is placed on Adam)

      In both cases, the speaker says of Adam that he is quick. The utterances in contexts of situation in which they are cited, would be taken to convey very different messages. In (a) we shall simplistically assume that the referents of I and Adam are fixed by spatio-temporal co-ordinates. In (b) different referents for I and Adam are fixed spatio-temporally. This ‘Adam’ that he is being compared (or contrasted) not with his father and favourably, but with the set of the other students unfavourably.

2.2 Co-text

Co-text is the words which occur in discourse are constrained by what,following Halliday. In the phrase like the aforementioned, the case that any sentence other than the first in the fragment of discourse, will have the whole of its interpretation forcibly constrained by the preciding text, not just those phrases which obviously and specifically refer to the preciding text.

1.7 The Expanding Context

            expanding context is a principles which will determine the relevance or nature of the specification.

1.8 The Principal of ‘Logical Interpretation’ and of ‘Analogy’

Principal of local interpretation is principle that instructs the hearer not to construct a context any larger than he needs to arrive at an interpretation.