Advertisement

Getting a grip on context as a determinant of meaning

  • Keith AllanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 18)

Abstract

The significance of context to the proper interpretation of texts has been known for millennia; it is implicit in some of Aristotle’s recommendations in Rhetoric and Quintilian’s in Institutes that rhetoric should ideally be appropriate to what was, post Augustine, called its context. Malinowski wrote that a stick may be used for different purposes in different contexts, e.g. digging, punting, walking, fighting. Exactly the same is true of language expressions, e.g. a word which is an insult in one context may be an expression of camaraderie or endearment in another (and vice versa). Stalnaker’s claim ‘context [is] a body of available information: the common ground’ (Stalnaker 2014: 24, an idea that goes back to Stalnaker 1978) is nearly, but not quite, right. I define common ground as in Allan 2013b. The speaker/writer/signer makes presumptions about common ground which may properly be called presuppositions, but I argue that utterances carry pragmatic entailments rather than presuppositions, such that where A pragmatically entails B, B cannot – given A – be denied without creating a paradox, absurdity, or contradiction. I distinguish three aspects of context: \( C1 \), \( C2 \), and \( C3 \). \( C1 \) is the world (and time) spoken of, which is largely identified from co-text; to oversimplify, it captures what is said about what at some world (and time). \( C2 \) is the world (and time) spoken in, the situation of utterance; it captures who does the saying to whom, and where and when this takes place. \( C3 \) is the situation of interpretation, the circumstances under which the hearer/reader/viewer interprets what the speaker/writer/signer said, and these may be very different in space and time from \( C2 \), which may impact the interpretation.

Keywords

context co-text common ground presupposition pragmatic entailment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to friends who have offered helpful comments: Mike Balint, Alessandro Capone, Robyn Carston, Anita Fetzer, Petra Hanzak, Humphrey van Polanen Petel, Hossein Shokohoui, Belén Soria Clivillés, and Howard Wettstein. None of these good people is in any way responsible for any flaws you notice in the essay.

References

  1. Abbott, B. (2008). Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, D. (1992). The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy: A trilogy in four parts. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, K. (1981). Interpreting from context. Lingua, 53, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic Meaning (2 vols). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Reprint edn, Beijing: World Publishing Corporation, 1991. Reissued in one volume as Routledge Library Editions: Linguistics Volume 8, 2014.).Google Scholar
  5. Allan, K. (2001). Natural language semantics. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Allan, K. (2003). Linguistic metatheory. Language Sciences, 25, 533–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allan, K. (2006a). Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English. Language Sciences, 28, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allan, K. (2006b). Mood, clause-type and illocutionary force. In E. K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics (2nd edn., 14 vols, pp. 8: 267–271). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Allan, K. (2010). The western classical tradition in linguistics (2nd Expanded Edn.). London: Equinox. [First edn 2007].Google Scholar
  10. Allan, K. (2011). Graded salience: Probabilistic meanings in the lexicon. In K. M. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (Eds.), Salience and defaults in utterance processing (pp. 165–187). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Allan, K. (2012). Pragmatics in the (English) lexicon. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 227–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Allan, K. (2013a). Referring to ‘what counts as the referent’: A view from linguistics. In A. Capone, F. L. Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 263–284). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Allan, K. (2013b). What is common ground? In A. Capone, F. L. Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 285–310). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Allan, K. (2015a). A benchmark for politeness. In J. L. Mey & A. Capone (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 397–420). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Allan, K. (2015b). When is a slur not a slur? The use of nigger in ‘pulp fiction’. Language Sciences, 52, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 211–232). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Allan, K. (2017). A death in late Victorian Dublin. In A. Capone & V. Parvaresh (Eds.), The pragmeme of accommodation and intercultural pragmatics: The case of interaction around the event of death (pp. 421–439). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Aristotle. (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation, Bollingen Series (p. 71). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Asim, J. (2007). The N word: Who can say it, who shouldn’t, and why. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  22. Augustine. (1836). In T. Tertius (Ed.), Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi opera omnia. Parisiis: Gaume Fratres.Google Scholar
  23. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Capone, A. (2013). Explicatures are NOT cancellable. In A. Capone, F. L. Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics (pp. 131–151). Chaim: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Butterick, S. (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Colston, H. L. (2008). A new look at common ground: Memory, egocentrism, and joint meaning. In I. Kecskes & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer (pp. 151–187). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  31. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1992). Lexical operations in a unification-based framework. In J. Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation: Proceedings of ACL SIGLEX workshop on lexical semantics and knowledge representation, Berkeley, California (pp. 101–119). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Croom, A. M. (2013). How to do things with slurs: Studies in the way of derogatory words. Language & Communication, 33, 177–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Donnellan, K. S. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304. Reprinted in Danny D. S., & Leon A. J. (1971). Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology (pp. 100–114). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  36. Ellinghaus, K. (1997). Racism in the never-never: Disparate readings of Jeannie Gunn. Hecate, 23, 76–94.Google Scholar
  37. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
  38. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Fishkin, S. F. (1993). Was Huck black?: Mark twain and African-American voices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Folb, E. (1980). Runnin’ down some lines: The language and culture of black teenagers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183–198). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice. H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words (pp. 269–282). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gunn, Mrs Aeneas [Jeannie]. (1983). We of the Never Never. [First edn 1908]. Richmond: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  45. Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schriffin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hornsby, J. (2001). Meaning and uselessness: How to think about derogatory words. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 128–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  48. Johansson, S. (2005). Origins of language: Constraints on hypotheses. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Joos, M. (1961). The five clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  50. Kennedy, R. L. (2000). Who can say “Nigger”? ... And other considerations. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 26, 86–96.Google Scholar
  51. Kennedy, R. L. (2003). Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word. [First published 2002]. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  52. Lehrer, A., & Kittay, E. F. (Eds.). (1992). Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization. In Information sciences institute (Vol. 4676, pp. 90292–96695). Marina Del Rey: Admiralty Way.Google Scholar
  57. Mann, W. C., Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Rhetorical structure theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 39–76). John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazzone, M. (2011). Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2148–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McWhorter, J. (2002). The uses of ugliness. A review of ‘Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word’ by Randall Kennedy. New Republic. January 14, 2002. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/uses-ugliness
  60. McWhorter, J. (2010). Let’s make a deal on the N-word: White folks will stop using it, and black folks will stop pretending that quoting it is saying it. The Root. August 16, 2010. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2010/08/blacks_and_whites_should_make_a_deal_on_the_nword.1.html
  61. McWhorter, J. (2011). Who are we protecting by censoring ‘Huck Finn’? The Root. January 11, 2011. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2011/01/who_are_we_protecting_by_‌censoring_huck_finn.html
  62. Minsky, M. (1977). Frame-system theory. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 355–376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Moore, G. E. (1952). A reply to my critics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of G.E. Moore (2nd ed., pp. 533–687). New York: Tudor Publ. Corp.Google Scholar
  64. Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  65. Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Quintilian. (1920–1922). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (Harold E. B., Trans.). Loeb Classical Library (4 vols). London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  67. Rahman, J. (2012). The N word: Its history and use in the African American community. Journal of English Linguistics, 40, 137–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reddick, L. D. (1944). Educational programs for the improvement of race relations: Motion pictures, radio, the press, and libraries. The Journal of Negro Education, 13, 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reynolds, H. (2013). Forgotten War. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493. Reprinted in Robert C. (1956). Marsh. Logic and knowledge (pp. 39–56). London: Allen and Unwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Schank, R. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Schank, R. (1984). The cognitive computer. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  74. Schank, R. (1986). Explanation patterns. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. C. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). Academic Press: New York. Reprinted in John R. S. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Searle, J. R. (1980). The background of meaning. In J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics (pp. 221–232). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Slocum, J. (1890). Voyage of the Liberdade. Boston: Robinson & Stephenson.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, Z. (2012). NW. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  80. Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 483–545.Google Scholar
  81. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [First edn 1986].Google Scholar
  82. Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 7, 3–19. [Reprinted in Robert C. S. Context and content (pp. 96–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stalnaker, R. C. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344. Reprinted in Rosenberg, J, & Travis, C. (Eds.). (1971). Readings in the philosophy of language (pp. 175–95). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tarantino, Q. (1999). Pulp fiction: Three stories about one story. London: Faber & Faber. [First published 1996.]Google Scholar
  87. Taylor, S. J., & John, H. (1982). St Augustine, Vol.1. The literal meaning of genesis, Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
  88. Twain, M (Samuel Clemens). (1884). The adventures of Huckleberry Finn: (Tom Sawyer’s comrade): Scene, the Mississippi Valley: Time, forty to fifty years ago. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  89. Twain, M (Samuel Clemens). (2011a). The adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn (Gribben. A., Ed.). Montgomery: NewSouth Books.Google Scholar
  90. Twain, M (Samuel Clemens). (2011b). The Hipster Huckleberry Finn (Grayson. R., Ed.). Brooklyn: Dumbo Books.Google Scholar
  91. Welsh, I. (2001). Trainspotting. London: Vintage Books. First published 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityPeregian SpringsAustralia

Personalised recommendations