INSIDE THE GURU'S GATE - Anpere

CONTEXUALIZATION AND ENTEXTUALIZATION
To say that meanings of formalized human action is constructed and derived from a
context does, however, involve a problem of definition and the methodological challenge
to determine the elements which possibly could constitute a particular context.
Anthropologists and others with larger social fields in view have often organized
their data around a wide range of different categories of contexts. Today there appears
to be are just as many meanings as there are applications of the word context –
all from “situational context” to “cultural context”. As Duranti & Goodwin (1993)
observe, the word context has assumed divergent meanings within different research
paradigms and there is no single definition of the word. A term like “cultural context”
probably provides one of the broadest frameworks of interpretation since it
may, in fact, comprise most aspects of human culture, including belief systems,
norms, history, languages, practices, etc., that a group of people within a geographical
area are believed to share. To simply say that Sikhs in Varanasi, for instance, are
influenced by their cultural context will entail a selection and simplification of a few
stereotypical features, among a wide range of other elements that make up the local
culture. Briggs correctly remarks that the concept of context carries the two problems
of inclusiveness and false objectivity. 718 Definitions of contexts easily become too
inclusive, because the ways to describe elements and factors surrounding a phenomenon
or an event are endless. Descriptions will therefore be based on the researcher’s
own judgment of what he or she think should be included, a selection that
reflects false objectivity.
In a move away from static and object-centred notions of context, a rapidly
growing body of work in anthropology and linguistics has shifted the focus from
contexts towards contextualization, that is, the ongoing processes by which interpretive
frameworks more situationally emerge among participants. In pragmatic linguistics
Bateson’s notions of how people “frame” behaviors and Goffman’s analysis of the
“footing” of speech have considerably helped scholars to develop more dynamic
definitions of contexts. 719 In analyses of conversations, Gumperz (1982) argues that
contextualization is a meta-level process that surfaces in negotiations between interacting
speakers. This process can be recognized by turning to the different “contextualization
cues”, which Gumperz defines as “any feature of linguistic form that contributes
to the signaling of contextual presuppositions.” 720 For instance, a gesture or a
rising intonation in speech (e.g., raising a finger while saying “no”) invokes interpretative
frames by which contextually appropriate process of inference can take place
(e.g., the addressee understands the speaker as forbidding or denying something).
Contextualization cues become the speaker’s strategic resources to communicate a
variety of messages by shifting frames.
718
Briggs 1988: 13.
719
Bateson 1972, Goffman 1974.
720
Gumperz 1982: 131.
455
Published on www.anpere.net in May 2008