First and first, we need to take a expression what discourse analysis is before we analyze what context is and how context is related to talk about analysis. Harmonizing to Van Dijk ( 2001 ) , discourses may be really abstract, for case when they are speaking about drugs or abortion in general nevertheless, discourses frequently are specific, about specific people, Acts of the Apostless and scenes, as is the instance for most mundane conversation, every bit good as for the intelligence. This is typically the instance in the intelligence and in assorted signifiers of mundane storytelling. Zellig Harris has introduced the term discourse analysis in 1952 as a manner of analysing connected address and composing where the scrutiny of linguistic communication beyond the degree of the sentence and the relationship between lingual and non lingual behavior are the two chief concerns ( Paltridge, 2006 ) . Discourse analysis is a survey of the relationship between linguistic communication and contexts in which it is used. It examines how stretches of linguistic communication, considered in their full textual, societal and psychological context, go meaningful and unified for their users. Back in the twelvemonth 1960s and early 1970s, discourse analysis grew out of work in several of subdivisions including linguistics, semantics, psychological science, anthropology and sociology. All sorts of written text and spoken informations, from normal conversation to extremely institutional signifiers of talk been used by discourse analysts to analyze linguistic communication. Dell Hymes ( 1964 ) , Austin ( 1962 ) , Searle ( 1969 ) , and Grice ( 1975 ) were the influential lingual philosophers back so.
The statement ‘context is cardinal in discourse analysis ‘ is extremely supported by several research workers. Jinadu ( 2006 ) has claimed that there are three chief points in discourse analysis. First, discourse analysis trades with the impression of the sentence in grammar as the basic degree from which grammatical or semantic significances derive. Second, in discourse analysis, message and shared experience become synergistic. Third, there is the construct of context. He besides added that discourse analysis emphasizes that ‘the complete significances of discourses ‘ can be validated from the context instead than from the sentence entirely therefore exemplifying the importance of context in discourse analysis. Context is indispensable because it helps to understand how linguistic communication maps and it is besides a cardinal apprehension between what is said and what is understood in spoken and written discourse. Harmonizing to Paltridge ( 2006 ) , knowledge about the linguistic communication beyond the word, clause, phrase and sentence needed for successful communicating and forms of linguistic communication across texts are the focal points in discourse analysis. Besides that, he besides added that in discourse analysis, it takes into history the relationship between linguistic communication and the societal and cultural contexts in which it is used. The term contexts are invariably used in the book as context plays an of import function in discourse analysis. It is supported by Paltridge ( 2006 ) as he has stated that:
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
Discourse analysis considers the relationship between linguistic communication and the contexts in which
it is usedaˆ¦
( Paltridge 2006: 3 )
In add-on, he besides added that an apprehension of how linguistic communication maps in context is indispensable to an apprehension of the relationship between what is said and what is understood in spoken and written discourse. There are good statements to restrict a manageable field of survey ; but it is besides true to state that the reply to the inquiry of what gives discourse its integrity possibly impossible to give without sing the universe at big: the context ( Cook, 1989 ) . Therefore it can be deduced that context is cardinal to talk about analysis and the accounts of this averment will be discussed.
What is context? Simply put, context is the conditions in which something exists or occurs. Linguistically, this is the portion of a discourse that surrounds a linguistic communication unit and helps to find its reading. Peoples will cognize how to construe what person says from the state of affairs they are in. If an air traffic accountant says to a pilot “ the track is full at the minute ” , it likely means that it is non possible to set down the plane at the minute. However, when a individual says “ the track is full at the minute ” to a individual who is waiting for person at the airdrome, it is the account of why the plane is tardily, non an direction to set down a plane. The track is full at the minute has a peculiar significance in a peculiar state of affairs and may intend something else in different state of affairs. The context of state of affairs of what person says is critical to understanding and construing the significance of what is being said which besides includes the physical context, the societal context and the mental words and functions of the people involved in an interaction.
Harmonizing to DeVito ( 2010 ) , contexts have four facets: physical context, the societal context, social-psychological context and temporal context. However, harmonizing to Jinadu ( 2006 ) , four types of relevant contexts that are frequently identified by discourse analysts are situational context, societal context, cognitive context and cultural context. Situational context or context of state of affairs is one of the recognized contexts which take into history the physical environment of the discourse. In this manner, the formal context for illustration an official meeting with the board managers or an inaugural talk will be different from an informal context like a confab in a eating house or a living room. Besides that, there is besides societal context that operates among middlemans which concerns the interpersonal and interactive relationships. In discourse analysis the societal categories or places of both the talker and the listener are really of import signals. The cognitive context, which deals with the message that goes on from the talker to the listener maps between their shared experiences. Cultural context involves the worldview of both the talker and the listener which may be interpreted in footings of cultural beliefs and patterns of the people.
There are several grounds why context is critical in discourse analysis. First, significances are context based. Therefore, it is incorrect to divide the context from discourse analysis. By utilizing the old illustration, when person says, “ The track is full, ” it indicates that the flight is delayed in normal person/ rider context but, the significance will be wholly different when it comes to aviation context. To a pilot, it means that the track can non be used to set down the plane. OIC in a confab room is interpreted as ‘Oh I see ‘ but OIC in newspapers might construe as ‘Organization of the Islamic Conference ( OIC ) ‘ . If person says ‘The coach is tardily, ‘ they might desire to complaint, they might besides desire to explicate why they are late or they making something else. Different context creates different significance and apprehension. This shows that, it is impossible to construe significance of a message taken out of context because contextual significance is portion and package of the overall significance.
Harmonizing to Van Dijk ( 2001 ) , people subjectively represent the societal state of affairs in which they now verbally take part for case, a confab with a relation at place, a lesson at school, reading the magazine on the train, take parting in a group treatment, or in a service brush in a store, among many others. He besides added that these subjective, mental representations of the communicative event and the current societal state of affairs as it constrains current discourse will be called context theoretical accounts, or merely contexts. In other words, contexts are non ‘out there ‘ , but ‘in here ‘ . They are mental concepts of participants that is, ‘subjective definitions of the communicative state of affairs ‘ in the sociocognitive impression of context theoretical accounts that are made explicitly. In fact, contexts are ‘individually variable readings of the on-going societal state of affairs ‘ ( Van Dijk,2001 ) .These theoretical accounts dynamically control all linguistic communication usage, make certain that discourses are appropriate in the communicative state of affairs and hence are the footing of pragmatics. In a simple account to sum up this point, people are the participants in a discourse and they represent context of state of affairs which controls the linguistic communication usage in the discourse. Therefore, it is appropriate to state that context is cardinal in discourse analysis.
In context theoretical accounts, the critical impression of relevancy is they define what for the discourse participants is now relevant in the societal state of affairs ( Van Dijk, 2001 ) . A construct of the communicative event by a context theoretical account is important because without it participants are unable to adequately lend to on-going discourse. Several effects might take topographic point as a consequence of it for case participants would be unable to bring forth and understand address Acts of the Apostless, would be unable to acquire used to subjects, lexical points, manner and rhetoric to the current societal event, and they would non even be able to convey what the receivers already know, so that they do non even cognize what content to show in the first topographic point. Surely, without context theoretical accounts, equal, contextually sensitive discourse is impossible. Therefore, this shows how context plays a function in discourse analysis.
My claim is that context permeates linguistic communication, that contextual premises affect how
we understand linguistic communication, and that contexts of address have to be better understood to
develop realistic theories of linguistic communication and of linguistic communication acquisition.
( Susan Ervin-Tripp, 1996: 21 )
Based on Ervin-Tripp ‘s ( 1996 ) statement, this explicitly proves how context is important in discourse analysis because forms of linguistic communication are portion of discourse analysis. Indeed, my point is that whatever linguistic communication users attend to in discourse is mostly dependent on their theoretical account of the communicative state of affairs. In fact, this is supported by Van Dijk ( 2001 ) as he has stated that the really map context has in the first topographic point is to specify the maps of linguistic communication usage. Besides, context besides influences what sort of linguistic communication and how linguistic communication is used. Every individual is born in a civilization and encompassing civilization. For illustration, in a Malay civilization, the kids are expected to utilize polite words when they speak to the senior. In Malay civilization, if person says, “ Hi Fatimah! ” and that individual happens to be younger than Fatimah, it is a really impolite salutation. This state of affairs is changing from English civilization whereby the kids can name their parents by the first name but it is non impossible for the Malay kids to name their parents by the first name if the whole household has adapted the English civilization. The context here is the civilization. This demonstrates that if the context/ civilization alteration, the usage of linguistic communication will be changed. The civilization itself undertakings the manner the individual in a civilization uses spoken and written discourse. From the spoken linguistic communication, we can find which civilization, part, race or faith a individual is in. For illustration, a individual has received a call from an unknown figure. From the conversation, we usually can state whether the individual is a Kelantanese, Chinese or Indian by their speech patterns even they do non utilize their female parent lingua in the conversation.
In add-on, context is of import because it determines, to a big extent, the significance of any verbal or non-verbal message ( DeVito, 2010 ) . The same words or behaviors may hold a wholly different intending when they occur in different contexts. For illustration, stating ‘hello ‘ to a friend at a busy street versus to a friend who is merely admitted at the infirmary. The recognizing “ How are you? ” means “ Hello ” to person you pass on a regular basis at the street but, it means “ Is your wellness improving? ” to a friend in the infirmary. Both state of affairss have the same message but the manner the message is conveyed and interpreted is different. Likewise, a blink of an eye to a beautiful lady in the street means something that is wholly different from a blink of an eye while stating a narrative to do up a prevarication. A nod means nil in Indian civilization but ‘yes ‘ in most civilizations. It is hard to construe the intended significance by merely analyzing the signals. Therefore it is proven that context is indispensable in discourse analysis.
In analysing the relationship between discourse and context, the Systemic Functional Linguistic ( SFL ) is besides need to be considered peculiarly by sing SFL ‘s usage of Context of Situation ( COS ) ( Jinadu, 2006 ) . The construct of COS is used to demo that any piece of linguistic communication or discourse is more meaningful in the context in which it functions. Halliday ( 1981 ) claimed that the constructions of discourse are to be defined in footings of the chief dimensions of the context of state of affairs, which they call field ( on-going activity, capable affair ) , tenor ( participant dealingss ) and temper ( the function discourse dramas in the on-going activity ) . Therefore, we should be able to do reasonable anticipations about the semantic belongingss of discourse based on an equal specification of semiotic belongingss of the context and this has shown that context and discourse analysis rely much on each other.
One of the celebrated sociolinguist, Dell Hymes has introduced a valuable theoretical account which is the Speaking theoretical account as a manner to advance the analysis of discourse as a series of speech events and address Acts of the Apostless within a cultural context. In his position, one needs non merely to larn its vocabulary and grammar in order to talk a linguistic communication right, but besides the context in which words are used. By utilizing the acronym, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G for the address constituents, he grouped the 16 constituents within eight divisions. The classs are so productive and powerful in analysing assorted sorts of discourse.
Second: scene and scene
A: act sequence
Harmonizing to Hymes ( 1989 ) , address does non happen in a vacuity, but instead within a specific context, and ‘when the significance of address manners are analyzed, we comprehend that they entail dimensions of participant, puting, channel, and the similar, which partially govern their significances ‘ . Hymes ( 1989 ) has stated that address can non be considered separate from the sociological and cultural factors as it helps to determine lingual signifier and create significance. Hymes ‘s SPEAKING theoretical account chiefly focuses on context in the analysis of discourse which proves that context is important in discourse analysis.
In a nutshell, based on the points given above it can be deduced that context is cardinal to talk about analysis and it is extremely supported by several research workers. Context controls facets of text and speak that are relevant for the participants. Besides that, context is indispensable because it helps to understand how linguistic communication maps and it is besides a cardinal apprehension between what is said and what is understood in spoken and written discourse Van Dijk ( 2008 ) stated:
Contexts are like other human experiences – at each minute and in each state of affairs
such experiences define how we see the current state of affairs and how we act in it. It is a
cardinal undertaking for the humanistic disciplines and societal scientific disciplines in general, and for discourse
surveies in peculiar, to demo how precisely our text and speak depends on – and influences
– such contexts.
Van Dijk, T. A. ( 2008 ) .
The context theoretical account which is discussed antecedently dynamically controls all linguistic communication usage and guaranting that discourses are appropriate in the communicative state of affairs and hence are the footing of pragmatics. Therefore, context and discourse analysis extremely correlates with each other.