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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I prefer to use the traditional S and H rather than something more neutral such as originator and addressee. When I refer to them as ‘intelligent’ I mean “capable of rational behaviour” and not “of above average IQ”.
- 2.
Assumptions about common ground are made in any social encounter and not restricted to language, though linguistic environments are all that concern me here.
- 3.
Inferencing, which may arise from spreading activation within an associative network, includes enrichment of implicitures and implicatures, disambiguation, and the like.
- 4.
(1) does not invoke the notion of ‘collective belief’ as described by Gilbert 1987, 1989. I am referring to what a member of K assumes about the beliefs of other members of K – and, most particularly, H. In my view, to convert this to what a member of K assumes to be a (collective) belief in K would be inaccurate.
- 5.
Note that ε may be a part of υ or the whole of υ.
- 6.
You see the effect of this if you compare, e.g., the science fiction of H.G. Wells with one of today’s SF writers.
- 7.
Although some of the worlds described in Douglas Adams Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Adams 1992) are subject to different natural laws than the world of its readers, they are ‘accessible’ worlds in my use of the term because we can understand them in the sense that we can follow the action much as the author seems to have intended.
- 8.
- 9.
accommodatus rebus atque personis.
- 10.
- 11.
Pragmatic entailment gives rise to Moore’s paradox: I went to the pictures last Tuesday, but I don’t believe that I did (Moore 1952: 543); more generally, p and I don’t believe that p and p and I believe that not-p. There is similarity between ‘pragmatic entailment’ and ‘explicature’ in Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson 1995, Carston 2002, Capone 2013) but the definitions are not the same. An explicature is a proposition communicated by an utterance if and only if it is a development of a logical form encoded by the utterance (Sperber & Wilson 1995: 182). Nonetheless, it is possible that my ‘pragmatic entailment’ may be what in RT is an ‘explicature’.
- 12.
The absurdity of The present King of France is bald uttered in 1905 (see Russell 1905) arises because the utterance pragmatically entails reference to a currently existing King of France when there was none.
- 13.
See Allan 2017 for scripts relevant to a death.
- 14.
See also Copestake & Briscoe 1992.
- 15.
This parallels the different interpretations of cut given in Searle 1980.
- 16.
This would have to have been identifiable from co-text; e.g. He’s going to Lake Eyre in a couple of weeks, so Harry’s happy it’s raining because it’ll bring out the flora and fauna just in time for his visit.
- 17.
Try Googling ‘nw10’.
- 18.
Kasia Jaszczolt tells me (p.c.) that the form in (21) dates from her mother’s generation and earlier, so today is somewhat outdated. Happily the point I am illustrating is not invalidated.
- 19.
There is at least one example of this in President Obama’s autobiography when, in an exchange of banter, his friend Ray addresses him as ‘nigger’, see Obama 2004: 73.
- 20.
Assuming nigger 2 is the slur and nigger 1 is not.
- 21.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/05/02/why-larry-wilmore-is-not-my-n/. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IDFt3BL7FA (‘my nigger’ occurs at 22:04 minutes). I am grateful to Howie Wettstein for drawing my attention to this.
- 22.
Penguins and ostriches are birds that don’t fly. Male elephants, male whales, male seals, and male alligators (among other creatures) are also bulls.
- 23.
See McWhorter 2011.
- 24.
The number of Aborigines slaughtered is disputed; it was between 30 and 170 (a huge discrepancy). Gunn’s silence on such matters observed bush etiquette, see Reynolds 2013: 214.
- 25.
The actors are: ‘Maynard’ = Duane Whitaker, ‘Butch’ = Bruce Willis, ‘Marsellus’ = Ving Rhames.
- 26.
The actors are: ‘Jules’ = Samuel L. Jackson, ‘Vincent’ = John Travolta.
- 27.
- 28.
Recall the fifteen occurrences of ‘Negro’ used as a term of respect (though not of address) in Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech at the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963.
References
Abbott, B. (2008). Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 523–538.
Adams, D. (1992). The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy: A trilogy in four parts. London: Pan Books.
Allan, K. (1981). Interpreting from context. Lingua, 53, 151–173.
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.).
Allan, K. (2001). Natural language semantics. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.
Allan, K. (2003). Linguistic metatheory. Language Sciences, 25, 533–560.
Allan, K. (2006a). Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English. Language Sciences, 28, 1–50.
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.
Allan, K. (2010). The western classical tradition in linguistics (2nd Expanded Edn.). London: Equinox. [First edn 2007].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Allan, K. (2015b). When is a slur not a slur? The use of nigger in ‘pulp fiction’. Language Sciences, 52, 187–199.
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.
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.
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle. (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation, Bollingen Series (p. 71). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Asim, J. (2007). The N word: Who can say it, who shouldn’t, and why. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Augustine. (1836). In T. Tertius (Ed.), Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi opera omnia. Parisiis: Gaume Fratres.
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language, 9, 124–162.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Croom, A. M. (2013). How to do things with slurs: Studies in the way of derogatory words. Language & Communication, 33, 177–204.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
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.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.
Ellinghaus, K. (1997). Racism in the never-never: Disparate readings of Jeannie Gunn. Hecate, 23, 76–94.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
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.
Fishkin, S. F. (1993). Was Huck black?: Mark twain and African-American voices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Folb, E. (1980). Runnin’ down some lines: The language and culture of black teenagers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73, 185–204.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
Gunn, Mrs Aeneas [Jeannie]. (1983). We of the Never Never. [First edn 1908]. Richmond: Hutchinson.
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.
Hornsby, J. (2001). Meaning and uselessness: How to think about derogatory words. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 128–141.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johansson, S. (2005). Origins of language: Constraints on hypotheses. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Joos, M. (1961). The five clocks. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Kennedy, R. L. (2000). Who can say “Nigger”? ... And other considerations. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 26, 86–96.
Kennedy, R. L. (2003). Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word. [First published 2002]. New York: Vintage Books.
Lehrer, A., & Kittay, E. F. (Eds.). (1992). Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.
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.
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.
Mazzone, M. (2011). Schemata and associative processes in pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2148–2159.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Prince, E. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.
Quintilian. (1920–1922). The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (Harold E. B., Trans.). Loeb Classical Library (4 vols). London: William Heinemann.
Rahman, J. (2012). The N word: Its history and use in the African American community. Journal of English Linguistics, 40, 137–171.
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.
Reynolds, H. (2013). Forgotten War. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.
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.
Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley.
Schank, R. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. (1984). The cognitive computer. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Schank, R. (1986). Explanation patterns. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. C. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
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.
Slocum, J. (1890). Voyage of the Liberdade. Boston: Robinson & Stephenson.
Smith, Z. (2012). NW. New York: Penguin Press.
Soames, S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 483–545.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [First edn 1986].
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].
Stalnaker, R. C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.
Stalnaker, R. C. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Tarantino, Q. (1999). Pulp fiction: Three stories about one story. London: Faber & Faber. [First published 1996.]
Taylor, S. J., & John, H. (1982). St Augustine, Vol.1. The literal meaning of genesis, Ancient Christian Writers. New York: Paulist Press.
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.
Twain, M (Samuel Clemens). (2011a). The adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn (Gribben. A., Ed.). Montgomery: NewSouth Books.
Twain, M (Samuel Clemens). (2011b). The Hipster Huckleberry Finn (Grayson. R., Ed.). Brooklyn: Dumbo Books.
Welsh, I. (2001). Trainspotting. London: Vintage Books. First published 1993.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allan, K. (2018). Getting a grip on context as a determinant of meaning. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72173-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72173-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72172-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72173-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)