2. 5. 3.

Types of Context
As mentioned in the section above, context can be
seen as an entity that encapsulates a number of layers.
These layers, which are actually the different types of
context that are supposedly omnipresent, can be listed as
follows:
2. 5. 3. 1. The physical context
The physical context reflects the space around something
and how that influences how one sees it (i. e.) it refers to
the material objects surrounding the communication event
and any other features of the natural world that influence
communication. (e.g. furniture and how it is arranged, size
of the room, colors, temperature, time of day, etc.)
2. 5. 3. 2. INNER CONTEXT: includes all feelings,
thoughts, sensations, and emotions going on inside of the
source or receiver which may influence how they act or
interpret events. (e,g. hungry, sleepy, angry, happy,
impatient, nauseous, etc.)
2. 5. 3. 3. SYMBOLIC CONTEXT: includes all messages
(primarily

words)

which

occur

before

or

after

communication event and which influence source or

receiver in their actions or understandings of the event.
(e.g. previous discussions (words we've said) in this class
influence how you understand this handout.)
2. 5. 3. 4. RELATIONAL CONTEXT: the relationship
between the sender and the receiver(s) of a message.

(e.g. father-son, student-teacher, expert-layman, friendfriend, etc.)

2. 5. 3. 5. SITUATIONAL CONTEXT: what the people who
are communicating (think of as /or/ label) the event they
are involved in -- what we call the act we are engaged in.
(e.g. having class, being on a date, studying, playing a
game, helping a friend with a problem, etc.)
2. 5. 3. 6. CULTURAL CONTEXT: The rules and patterns
of communication that are given by (learned from) our
culture

and

which

differ

from

other

cultures.

(e.g.

American, Japanese, British, etc.) Some people have

suggested that within the U.S. there are sub-cultures. (e.g.
Hispanic, Southern, rural-Midwest, urban gang, etc).
In fact, context is both social and interpersonal. It is social
in the sense that context encompasses the internal
organization

of

society,

its

intentions,

internal

differences, sub-groupings, and so on. Therefore, the

study of language in a social context consists of the study
of the linguistic material produced within the structure of
the society. It focuses on the way in which particular
characteristics of the society affect the structure of
change and variation of the language spoken, and,
conversely, to the way in which different attitudes about
its variation affect the internal dimensions and forces of
the recipient community.
The interpersonal context usually takes priority over the
social context in such sub-disciplines as pragmatics,

discourse analysis, conversation(al) analysis, etc. These

disciplines

are

not

devoted

to

understanding

the

interaction of the linguistic structure of the society. The

focus

is

rather

on

the

individuals

involved

in

the

interaction. These individuals are the speaker and the

hearer, or the reader and the writer. The interpersonal
context, here, is essential to the understanding of the
exchanged utterances or texts. Such a context usually
includes

statements

rooted

in

psychology,

such

as

intentions, beliefs, and rationality.

My argument is that even if members of a community
which

speaks

the

same

language

communicate

message, it may be interpreted according to different

interpretive conventions. In social interaction, how an
utterance is said is more important than what is said. The
utterances people exchange are related to the situational
and cultural context in which they occur. There are certain
verbal, para-verbal (stress, intonation, tempo, laughter)
and non-verbal signs (gaze direction, gesture, body
posture,

tone

of

voice)

that

help

to

interpret

the

utterances. Gumperz calls them contextualization cues

(see

Kramsh,

1998:27).

In

fact,

contextualization

conventions are required through primary socialization in

family or friendship circles or intensive communicative cooperation

in

finite

range

of

institutionalized

environments (See Rose & Kasper, 2001: 82). Moreover,

context schemas and their categories may be culturally
variable,

thus

defining

different

appropriateness

conditions for discourse in different societies (van Dijk

2008:22). Although some context categories may (or
must) be universal, as is the case for Speakers and various
kinds of Recipients, as well as Knowledge, others may be
more culturally variable, for instance specific social
properties of participants. Status, power and kinship are
relevant Participant properties in the context schemas of
many cultures controlling for instance various expression
of politeness and deference whereas others (say, talking
to ones mother-in-law) may be more specific, and others
again probably irrelevant anywhere (such as the length of
ones hair). A general theory of context should account for
such cultural universals and differences of context.

See Dascal (2003: 546) Interpretation and Understanding |

Contextualism|