Contextualization (sociolinguistics)

Last updated June 20, 2023

Contextualization in sociolinguistics refers to the use of language (both spoken language and body language) to signal relevant aspects of an interaction or communicative situation. This may include clues to who is talking, their relationship, where the conversation is occurring, and much more. These clues can be drawn from how the language is being used, what type of language is being used (formal versus informal), and the participants tone of voice (Andersen and Risør 2014). Contextualization includes verbal and non-verbal clues of things such as the power dynamic or the situation apparent from a conversation being analyzed or participated in. These clues are referred to as "contextualization cues". Contextualization cues are both verbal and non-verbal signs that language speakers use and language listeners hear that give clues into relationships, the situation, and the environment of the conversation (Ishida 2006). An example of contextualization in academia is the work of Basil Bernstein (1990 [1971]). Bernstein describes the contextualization of scientific knowledge in pedagogical contexts, such as textbooks.

Contextualization Cues

As previously mentioned, contextualization cues are a crucial in that they are the clues that allow observers to better understand the interaction being presented. Some contextualization cues include: intonation, accents, body language, type of language, and facial expressions (Anderson and Risør 2014). Intonation refers to the rise and fall of speech. By observing this, excitement, anger, interest, or other emotions can be determined. Accents indicate a person's place of origin, so in a conversation this can give clues to not only where a person is from but also the values or cultural beliefs. Furthermore, when body language and facial expressions are combined, more clues about the relationship of the speaker, their feelings towards the topic or other participant, or emotions become evident (Ducharme and Bernard 2001). Finally, whether a person uses formal or informal language, allows the relationship between the two speakers to be clear. Most likely, when an interaction between two people who are peers and/or familiar with one another will utilize the informal form of language. The reverse is true for people unfamiliar with each other or those in an unequal power dynamic (Masuda 2016).

Impact of Contextualization

Contextualization has the overarching benefit of granting people the ability to understand. Zana Mahmood Hassan details the usefulness of contextualization in his paper, "Language Contextualization and Culture." Contextualization in sociolinguistics can allow those learning a language to begin to understand the culture by the cues found in the nuances of the language (Hassan 2014). Generalized, Hassan's findings reveal that language and context go hand in hand. Scholars have said that it is important to include culture studies into language studies because it aids in students' learning. The informational and situational context that culture provides helps language "make sense"; culture is a contextualization cue (Hassan 2014). In all, contextualization, when implemented properly, can make learning a language easier. Ducharme and Bernard make a similar argument in their article. They say that when students are given the tools and space to utilize contextualization, they are better able to learn a second language (Ducharme and Bernard 2001). Contextualization does not only ease everyday understand of language and language interactions, but it also aids in language learning and comprehension in an academic setting. Contextualization takes language just one step further by proving the intricacies of language and by filling in the gaps.

Examples of Contextualization in Use

Example One: John Gumperz

John Gumperz (1982a) gives the following example. He suggests that in the following interaction the linguistic style used by the interviewer signals a context different from that expected by the husband. The interviewer, an African-American graduate student in educational psychology, has been sent to interview a woman at her home in a low-income neighborhood. The interviewer rings the door bell and the woman's husband opens the door.

Husband: So y're gonna check out ma old lady, hah?

Interviewer: Ah, no. I only came to get some information. They called from the office.

The husband addresses the interviewer in an informal style, marking their interaction as friendly. When the interviewer responds in a more formal style, the context becomes more formal. As a result, the interviewer reports that the interview was "stiff" (Gumperz 1982a: 133).

Example Two: Kyoko Masuda

Kyoko Masuda provides another example from a study of conversations between female professors and students in Japan. She found that while students consistently used formal forms of Japanese when talking to professors, professors would often switch between the formal and informal forms depending on the topic of conversation (Masuda 2016). In this example, a student and professor are discussing the cultural difference in education between America and Japan:

Student A: Because in Japan, they absolutely can't do that, we (teachers) must teach them, don't we?

Professor A: I (definitely) think so, you know.

Student A: What else? (American students) do things like eating food and putting their feet on the desk. I don't understand well whether that sort of thing is part of their culture.

Professor A: After all, do you mind (their behavior)?

Student A: I do mind. (Masuda 2016)

In this interaction, the cues received by the student's style of speaking suggests that they are speaking to an authority figure, because they are deferring through the use of questions. Furthermore, you can see the formality in their language throughout the brief interaction. The student speaks in elongated sentences, saying things such as "I don't understand well" rather than just the informal "I don't get it." In examining the professor's use of language, they switch between the informal form ("I (definitely) think so, you know.") and the formal form ("After all, do you mind (their behavior)?"). This suggests that the professor used cues to learn that the student would prefer to remain in the formal form, and molded their language style to fit that. The reverse is seen within the next example:

Student B: When students (in Section A) know the answer, they immediately respond.

Professor B: Yeah, because they have confidence after all, don't they?

Student B: Yeah. Students in Section B are really slow, you know. (Masuda 2016)

After listening to the professor speak and seeing the professor utilize the informal form, the student shifted their style of speaking. Student B began by using the formal form, but ended with the informal form after examining the cues presented.

Related Research Articles

In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning. The field of study evaluates how human language is utilized in social interactions, as well as the relationship between the interpreter and the interpreted. Linguists who specialize in pragmatics are called pragmaticians. The field has been represented since 1986 by the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA).

Dell Hathaway Hymes was a linguist, sociolinguist, anthropologist, and folklorist who established disciplinary foundations for the comparative, ethnographic study of language use. His research focused upon the languages of the Pacific Northwest. He was one of the first to call the fourth subfield of anthropology "linguistic anthropology" instead of "anthropological linguistics". The terminological shift draws attention to the field's grounding in anthropology rather than in what, by that time, had already become an autonomous discipline (linguistics). In 1972 Hymes founded the journal Language in Society and served as its editor for 22 years.

Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any or all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and society's effect on language. It can overlap with the sociology of language, which focuses on the effect of language on society. Sociolinguistics overlaps considerably with pragmatics and is closely related to linguistic anthropology.

Politeness is the practical application of good manners or etiquette so as not to offend others. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.

Anthropological linguistics is the subfield of linguistics and anthropology which deals with the place of language in its wider social and cultural context, and its role in making and maintaining cultural practices and societal structures. While many linguists believe that a true field of anthropological linguistics is nonexistent, preferring the term linguistic anthropology to cover this subfield, many others regard the two as interchangeable.

Nonverbal communication (NVC) is the transmission of messages or signals through a nonverbal platform such as eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, posture, use of objects and body language. It includes the use of social cues, kinesics, distance (proxemics) and physical environments/appearance, of voice (paralanguage) and of touch (haptics). A signal has three different parts to it, including the basic signal, what the signal is trying to convey, and how it is interpreted. These signals that are transmitted to the receiver depend highly on the knowledge and empathy that this individual has. It can also include the use of time (chronemics) and eye contact and the actions of looking while talking and listening, frequency of glances, patterns of fixation, pupil dilation, and blink rate (oculesics).

A speech community is a group of people who share a set of linguistic norms and expectations regarding the use of language. It is a concept mostly associated with sociolinguistics and anthropological linguistics.

Integrationism is an approach in the theory of communication that emphasizes innovative participation by communicators within contexts and rejects rule-based models of language. It was developed by a group of linguists at the University of Oxford during the 1980s, notably Roy Harris.

John Joseph Gumperz was an American linguist and academic. Gumperz was, for most of his career, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. His research on the languages of India, on code-switching in Norway, and on conversational interaction, has benefitted the study of sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, linguistic anthropology, and urban anthropology.

Stephen C. Levinson FBA is a British social scientist, known for his studies of the relations between culture, language and cognition, and former scientific director of the Language and Cognition department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a theory of communication developed by Howard Giles. This theory concerns "(1) the behavioral changes that people make to attune their communication to their partner, (2) the extent to which people perceive their partner as appropriately attuning to them." The basis of the theory lies in the idea that people adjust their style of speech to one another. Doing this helps the message sender gain approval from the receiver, increases efficiency in communication between both parties, and helps the sender maintain a positive social identity. This theory is concerned with the links between language, context, and identity. It focuses on both the intergroup and interpersonal factors that lead to accommodation, as well as the ways that power, macro and micro-context concerns affect communication behaviors. Accommodation is usually considered to be between the message sender and the message receiver, but the communicator also often accommodates to a larger audience – either a group of people that are watching the interaction or society in general.

Difference theory, broadly, is based on studies of communication and other interactions that find cultural differences between men and women.

In sociolinguistics, SPEAKING or the SPEAKING model, is a model socio-linguistic study developed by Dell Hymes. Hymes developed this model as part of a new methodology referred to as the ethnography of speaking. This model is a tool to assist the identification and labeling of components of interactional linguistics that was driven by his view that, in order to speak a language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but also the context in which words are used. In essence, learning the components of the SPEAKING model is essential for linguistic competence.

In semiotics, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, context refers to those objects or entities which surround a focal event, in these disciplines typically a communicative event, of some kind. Context is "a frame that surrounds the event and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation". It is thus a relative concept, only definable with respect to some focal event within a frame, not independently of that frame.

Metaphorical code-switching refers to the tendency in a bilingual or multilingual community to switch codes in conversation in order to discuss a topic that would normally fall into another conversational domain. "An important distinction is made from situational switching, where alternation between varieties redefines a situation, being a change in governing norms, and metaphorical switching, where alternation enriches a situation, allowing for allusion to more than one social relationship within the situation." For example, at a family dinner, where you would expect to hear a more colloquial, less prestigious variety of language, family members might switch to a highly prestigious form in order to discuss school or work. At work interlocutors may switch to a low prestige variety when discussing family.

Interactional sociolinguistics is a subdiscipline of linguistics that uses discourse analysis to study how language users create meaning via social interaction. It is one of the ways in which linguists look at the intersections of human language and human society; other subfields that take this perspective are language planning, minority language studies, quantitative sociolinguistics, and sociohistorical linguistics, among others. Interactional sociolinguistics is a theoretical and methodological framework within the discipline of linguistic anthropology, which combines the methodology of linguistics with the cultural consideration of anthropology in order to understand how the use of language informs social and cultural interaction. Interactional sociolinguistics was founded by linguistic anthropologist John J. Gumperz. Topics that might benefit from an Interactional sociolinguistic analysis include: cross-cultural miscommunication, politeness, and framing.

Text and conversation is a theory in the field of organizational communication illustrating how communication makes up an organization. In the theory's simplest explanation, an organization is created and defined by communication. Communication "is" the organization and the organization exists because communication takes place. The theory is built on the notion, an organization is not seen as a physical unit holding communication. Text and conversation theory puts communication processes at the heart of organizational communication and postulates, an organization doesn't contain communication as a "causal influence", but is formed by the communication within. This theory is not intended for direct application, but rather to explain how communication exists. The theory provides a framework for better understanding organizational communication.

In sociolinguistics, a style is a set of linguistic variants with specific social meanings. In this context, social meanings can include group membership, personal attributes, or beliefs. Linguistic variation is at the heart of the concept of linguistic style—without variation, there is no basis for distinguishing social meanings. Variation can occur syntactically, lexically, and phonologically.

In linguistics, a backchanneling during a conversation occurs when one participant is speaking and another participant interjects responses to the speaker. A backchannel response can be verbal, non-verbal, or both. Backchannel responses are often phatic expressions, primarily serving a social or meta-conversational purpose, such as signifying the listener's attention, understanding, sympathy, or agreement, rather than conveying significant information. Examples of backchanneling in English include such expressions as "yeah", "OK", "uh-huh", "hmm", "right", and "I see".

Situational code-switching is the tendency in a speech community to use different languages or language varieties in different social situations, or to switch linguistic structures in order to change an established social setting. Some languages are viewed as more suited for a particular social group, setting, or topic more so than others. Social factors like class, religion, gender, and age influence the pattern of language that is used and switched between.

References

Andersen, Rikke Sand; Risør, Mette Bech (2014-09-02). "The importance of contextualization. Anthropological reflections on descriptive analysis, its limitations and implications". Anthropology & Medicine. 21 (3): 345–356. doi:10.1080/13648470.2013.876355. hdl: 10037/6733 . ISSN 1364-8470. PMID 24484056.
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control. Vol. IV. The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., & Thibault, P. (2002). Language and interaction. Discussions with J. J. Gumperz. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982a). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (Ed.). (1982b). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishida, H. (2006). Learners' perception and interpretation of contextualization cues in spontaneous Japanese conversation: Back-channel cue Uun.Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1943-1981. doi : 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.08.004
Masuda, K. (2016). Style-shifting in student-professor interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 101, 101-117. doi : 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.05.012
Ducharme, D. and Bernard, R. (2001). Communication breakdowns: an exploration of contextualization in native and non-native speakers of French. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6) - 825-847.
Hassan, Z. M. (2014). Language Contextualization and Culture. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 31-35.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.