Abstract
This contribution investigates the role ofcontext in natural-language communication bydifferentiating between linguistic andsociocultural contexts. It is firmly anchoredto a dialogue framework and based on arelational conception of context as astructured and interactionally organisedphenomenon. However, context is not onlyexamined from this bottom-up or microperspective, but also from a top-down or macroviewpoint as pre- and co-supposed socioculturalcontext. Here, context is not solely seen as aninteractionally organised phenomenon, butrather as a sociocultural apparatus whichstrongly influences the interpretation of microsituations.
The section, micro building blocks andlocal meaning, argues for a sociopragmaticapproach to natural-language communication thusaccommodating both speech act theory andconversation analysis. It examines the questionof how linguistic and sociocultural contextsare accommodated by the micro building blocksof speech act and turn, and speaker and hearer.The results obtained are systematised in thesection, micro meets macro, and adaptedto the requirements of the dialogue act ofa plus/minus-validity claimbased on thecontextualisation of Jürgen Habermas'sconception of ratification of validityclaimadopted from this theory ofcommunicative action(1987). The definition ofa plus/minus-validity claim is furthersupplemented by the Gricean CooperativePrinciple, the ethnomethodological premise ofaccountability of social action, theconversation-analytic notion of sequentialorganisation and the interpersonal concepts offace and participation format. Validity claimsare discussed from both bottom-up and top-downperspectives stressing the dynamics of contextwith regard to both process and product, andselection and construction.
In conclusion, the relational status of contextrequires an interactive frame of referenceaccounting for context, contextualisation,decontextualisation and recontextualisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.M. and J. Heritage (eds.): 1984, Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J.L.: 1980, How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bar-Hillel, Y.: 1998, Indexical Expressions. In A. Kasher (ed.), Pragmatics: Critical Concepts. London: Routledge, 23–40.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson: 1987, Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coupland, J. et al.: 1992, “How are you?”: Negotiating phatic communication, Language in Society21: 207–230.
Ducrot, O.: 1972, Dire et ne par dire. Paris: Hermann.
Fasold, R.: 1990, The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fetzer, A.: 1996, Preference organization and interactive language teaching. Communicative strategies in a German-English context. IRALXXXIV/2: 77–93.
Fetzer, A.: 1997, Negative Contextualization: A Socio-semiotic Approach to Language Teaching. In M. Pütz (ed.), The Cultural Context in Foreign Language Teaching. Frankfurt; Peter Lang, 85–109.
Fetzer, A.: 1998, Mehr-sprachl.-Material versus weniger-sprachl.-Material: Zur Kontextualisierungspotenz für Zurückweisungen. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule52: 48–72.
Fetzer, A.: 1999a, Validity Claims: Assigning Contextual Information. In T.D. Wilson and D. Allen (eds.), Information Seeking in Context: Proceedings of the 2nd ISIC Conference, Sheffield, 1998. London: Taylor Graham Publishing, 494–505.
Fetzer, A.: 1999b, Challenging the Unspoken: Exploiting the Ideology in and of Political Interviews. In J. Verschueren (ed.), Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 1. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 98–113.
Fetzer, A.: 1999c, Non-acceptances: Re-or Un-creating Context. In P. Bouquet, P. Brezillon and L. Serafini (eds.), 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Modeling and Using Context (Context'99). Springer: Heidelberg, 133–144.
Fetzer, A.: 2000, Negotiating Validity Claims in Political Interviews, Text20(4): 1–46.
Garfinkel, H.: 1994, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Givón, T.: 1999, Generativity and Variation: The Notion ‘Rule of Grammar’ Revisited. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Emergentists Approaches to Grammar. Erlbaum: Mahwah, 81–114.
Goffman, E.: 1970, Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E.: 1974, Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, E.: 1983, Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grice, H.P.: 1975, Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
Grimshaw, A.D.: 1980, Mishearings, Misunderstandings, and other Nonsuccesses in Talk: A Plea for Redress of Speaker-Oriented Bias, Sociological Inquiry50: 31–74.
Habermas, J.: 1987, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J.: 2000, Die analytische Sprachphilosophie nimmt Hegel in Besitz. Frankfurter Rundschau 20.06.2000: 22.
Harnish, R.: 1991, Logical Form and Implicature. In S. Davis (ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 31-6-364.
Holmes, J.: 1992, Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. and J. Svartvik: 1994, A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Levinson, S.: 1983, Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.: 1988, Putting Linguistics on a Proper Footing: Explorations in Goffman's Concepts of Participation. In P. Drew and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 161–227.
Linell, P.: 1998, Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pomerantz, A.: 1984, Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. Atkinson and J.M. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–101.
Recanati, F.: 1986, On Defining Communicative Intentions, Mind & Language1/3: 213–242.
Recanati, F.: 1989, The Pragmatics of What is Said, Mind & Language4/4: 295–329.
Sarangi, S. and S. Slembrouk: 1996, Language, Bureaucracy & Social Control. London: Longman.
Searle, J.: 1969, Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.: 1975, Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.
Searle, J.: 1992. Conversation. In J. Searle et al. (eds.), (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 137–147.
Sharwood-Smith, M.: 1994, Second Language Learning. London: Longman.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1996, Relevance: Communication and Cognition. London: Blackwell.
Tannen, D.: 1981, The Machine-gun Question. An Example of Conversational Style, Journal of Pragmatics5: 383–397.
Thomas, J.: 1996, Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.
Wardhaugh, R.: 1998, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fetzer, A. Micro Situations and Macro Structures: Natural-Language Communication and Context. Foundations of Science 7, 255–291 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019609109906
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019609109906